December 15, 2004: Disclosing Bad Character to Juries

Home Office Minister Baroness Scotland today announced implementation of the bad character provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 2003. These provisions give juries the opportunity to hear a wider range of relevant evidence in criminal trials.

Evidence of a defendant’s previous convictions and other misconduct will now be admissible in criminal trials provided it is relevant, will throw new light on the case, and is not likely to make the trial unfair. This reverses the current position, where evidence of a defendant’s bad character is generally not admitted in criminal proceedings. The provisions will cover all types of offences, and will apply to all cases in which charges are laid on or after 15 December.

The new provisions are part of the measures set out in the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Safeguards will exist to ensure fairness; in particular a court will retain the discretion to exclude evidence where it concludes the prejudicial effect on the jury would be greater than its probative value.

Baroness Scotland said:

“The law has recognised for over a century that evidence of a defendant’s previous convictions and other misconduct may be admitted in some circumstances. But the current rules are confusing and difficult to apply, and can mean that evidence of previous misconduct that seems clearly relevant is still excluded from court.

“Trials should be a search for the truth and juries should be trusted with all the relevant evidence available to help them to reach proper and fair decisions. Judges can exclude evidence of bad character if they think it would be unfair or not in the interests of justice to include it.

“The bad character provisions are a response to widespread public concern about the current state of the law in this area. The reforms will replace the complexity of current rules governing the admissibility of evidence of bad character with a coherent statutory scheme. They aim to strike a proper balance between ensuring on the one hand that magistrates and juries are able to take account of the widest range of relevant evidence when deciding cases, and on the other, that any convictions are made on a safe and solid basis of evidence.”