R v Hanson
Under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, evidence of a defendant's previous convictions may be admitted to show propensity, but the judge must consider whether the propensity makes guilt more likely and whether admission would be unjust.
Facts
The Court of Appeal heard several appeals concerning the admission of evidence of defendants' previous convictions under the new bad character provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which had come into force in December 2004. In each case, the prosecution had relied on section 101(1)(d), which allows evidence of bad character to be admitted where it is relevant to an important matter in issue between the defendant and the prosecution, including whether the defendant has a propensity to commit offences of the kind charged.
Legal principle
Rose LJ gave guidance on the new provisions. He said that, where propensity to commit the offence is relied on, there are essentially three questions to be considered: does the history of convictions establish a propensity to commit offences of the kind charged; does that propensity make it more likely that the defendant committed the offence charged; and is it unjust to rely on the convictions, and in any event will the proceedings be unfair if they are admitted. There is no minimum number of events necessary to demonstrate a propensity, but a single previous conviction will often not show propensity unless it shows a tendency to unusual behaviour. The judge must also direct the jury carefully about the limited relevance of the evidence.
Related cases on character evidence
- Director of Public Prosecutions v P [1991] 2 AC 447
- Makin v Attorney General for New South Wales [1894] AC 57
- R v Brewster [2010] EWCA Crim 1194
- R v Highton [2005] EWCA Crim 1985
- R v Hunter [2015] EWCA Crim 631
- R v Vye [1993] 1 WLR 471
- R v Z [2000] 2 AC 483
Studying evidence? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
