R v Vye
A defendant of good character is entitled to a direction that his good character is relevant to his credibility, if he has given evidence or made pre trial statements, and to the likelihood that he committed the offence.
Facts
In three appeals, the defendants were of previous good character, but the trial judges had not given the jury full directions about the relevance of their good character. The question was what direction a judge should give where the defendant has no previous convictions, including in the case of a defendant who had not given evidence but had made statements to the police.
Legal principle
Lord Taylor CJ said that, where a defendant of good character has given evidence, or made pre trial answers or statements, the judge should direct the jury that his good character is relevant to his credibility. The judge should also direct the jury that good character is relevant to the question whether the defendant was likely to have behaved as alleged by the prosecution. Where the defendant has not given evidence or made any statements, the judge must still give the second limb of the direction. The good character direction was later reconsidered in R v Hunter, which held that a defendant with old or minor convictions is not necessarily entitled to it.
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 Hanson [2005] EWCA Crim 824
- R v Highton [2005] EWCA Crim 1985
- R v Hunter [2015] EWCA Crim 631
- 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.
