1

Good Character
CJA 2003 do not affect the entitlement of a person of GC to present himself. Act admits more evidence of BC and
so accused mat forfeit all/part of GC direction there were previously entitled to.
-

Rule is that if a defendant is of GC he will be entitled to a good character direction Vye Direction.
Direction can be modified/qualified in individual cases.

COMMON LAW
-

Accused may adduce evidence of his general character founded on his general rep in the neighbourhood
in which he lives. not specific acts or examples of his GC

Sections 99(2) & 118(1)

Witness must not give personal opinion of D. only evidence of D general character in community

Character W can come from same workplace/church/social organisation

Evidence relevant to propensity and credibility

R v Aziz: good character is logically relevant to credibility and likelihood he would commit offence

Defendants can introduce GC by

CJA 2003 preserved rule.

1.

Their own oral testimony exam in chief

2.

Calling witnesses

3.

Cross-examining Pros witnesses

When a vye direction?

1.

if accused has no criminal record R v Aziz

2.

if D has criminal record but convictions are:

- Irrelevant/insignificant to offence in question

- Minor offences, old or spent under RoOA 1974
Court may ignore and give direction. But judge discretion R v Remice
Where accused does not have crim record but: discreditable/dishonest/engaged in misconduct/other criminal
behaviour either in past or during investigation/trial. = complicated
1.

judge may decide to qualify direction to take account of misconduct

2.

give one limb of the direction

3.

Where meaningless/absurd to give direction. Judge may decline to give one. Even if no past convictions

R v Durbin entitled to qualified VD but two previous convictions for dishonesty and he had admitted to
smuggling computer parts into France to avoid paying custom duties and lying to custom officers in interview
R v Aziz no previous convictions. Charged with income/tax/vat fraud. Entitled to VD even though D1 admitted to
lying to custom officers and making false mortgage. D2 not declared full income. Judge should have given
Qualified VD
R v Shaw: D charged w/ murder. Not entitled to VD event though no criminal record. Emerged that he was a drug
dealer/member of armed gang. Judge would have had to qualify direction to the extent that it would have done
more harm than good.
Just because bad character inadmissible does not = VD
R v Lawson:
Do not accept proposition that if D has history of BD which judge holds not to have probative value on
truthfulness/credibility, then D is entitle to GCD. GCD only for those who are or judge rules may be treated as if
they are without bad character of any kind. Does not extend to those with existing bad character but which is not
probative enough. But does extent to those whose BC excluded as matter of discretion

2
Where d does not have previous convictions but evidence of reprehensible behaviour admissible under BC
provisions d will still receive BC direction. But judge may modify to take into account lack of previous
convictions.
R v Doncaster: GC direction not appropriate, but the jury would be advised to consider which they thought
counted most: absence of PC or the evidence of misconduct

Judicial directions history

-

Before no duty to refer to GD when summing up. Discretionary.

Today failure to give direction or an inappropriate direction can be sig on appeal of a conviction - R v
Fulcher

Derived from the view that case must be put forward in a fair/balanced way to jury. Evidence of GC is
evidence of probative significance, fairness = judge directing on it

Vye leading case

Aziz- HoL approved rules laid down in Vye for their potential to reduce the number of appeals against conviction.
2 limbs
1.

2.

Direction on credibility
-

Where the accuseds credibility is in issue because he has given evidence at trial or has provided an
exculpatory statement to the police. Judge should direct jury to have regard to the D GC when
considering veracity of D evidence i.e. never lied, so unlikely to lie now

If accused does not give evidence at trial/pre-trial. First limb will not be given because he has not given
evidence so credibility is not in issue.

Direction on propensity
-

All cases where D is/judged to be of GC even if they testify or not

Deals with relevance of GC to guilt i.e. that a person of GC is unlikely to have committed the offence
charged.

Judge also required to warn jury that GC on its own not a defence to offence
Responsibility
If D raises issue of GC. Defence counsel respons to ensure D receives GCD Teeluck v Trin&tob
Qualified Directions
Where previous convictions or known BC. Judge may give QD.
= when giving VD the judge will also inform the jury of the relevance of any other proved/possible criminal conduct
which may have emerged at trial. Jury should not be directed to approach the case on a basis which is artificial or
untrue R v Durbin
Gray: D charged w/ murder. Course of trial he admitted to using violence but denied murder. D 18yrs, said when
he was under 17 he was convicted of driving with excess alcohol, w/o licence/insurance. CoA: judge should have
used discretion in favour of treating D of GC, entitled to Credibility and modified propensity direction because
admitting conduct of driving, short of murder.
Direction on propensity qualified to include violent behaviour. But judge would have underlined diff b/w violence
and murder
Martin: D robbery of petrol station & bank using hammer. No PC, but twice cautioned for possessing offensive
weapons. Judge gave usual GCD for credibility but not propensity. Why? Previous cautions mean that offender
should have admitted the offence having understood the significance of what was being alleged. Judge entitled to
use discretion as to appropriate character direction, giving the propensity direction would = absurd/misleading
Sanchez: Drug trafficking, stopped and found to have cocaine street value of 1M. No PC and defendant gave
evidence to this effect. Jury not told that D formally reprimanded by police for shoplifting aged 16, pros aware of

3
this fact. Judge withheld Credibility limb because shoplifting but something this serious. Judge correct to give only
propensity and entitled to confine his direction about the D lack of previous convictions to that issue.
Complications
-

Both G and B evidence:

No PC but BC evidence admissible under s101 (1) on grounds of other reprehensible behaviour. GCD may not be
given on credibility & propensity where it contradict BC evidence relevant to credibility/p. more appropriate for
judge to qualify the BCD to take account of lack of CR
-

Co accused:

2 or more D tried together, one may qualify for GCD, other not. Concern that highlighting GC of one is highlighting
BC of the other. But Vye still stands, accused of GC is entitled to same character direction as if he stood trial
alone.