Introduction Towards The Evidence Of Character Assignment Sample

Introduction Towards The Evidence Of Character Assignment by New Assignment Help

  • 54000+ Project Delivered
  • 500+ Experts 24x7 Online Help
  • No AI Generated Content
GET 35% OFF + EXTRA 10% OFF
- +
35% Off
£ 6.69
Estimated Cost
£ 4.35
11 Pages 2708Words

Introduction of Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Creativity Assignment

Get free written samples from expert assignment writers and academic writing services in UK.

INTRODUCTION TOWARDS THE EVIDENCE OF CHARACTER

The admissibility regarding the evidence of character cannot be considered straightforward. The question arises regarding the consideration of the defendant as guilty in case they previously have a good trait or character. The query is if the evidence regarding a good trait always indicates the witness of speaking the truth. On the other hand, a similar question prevails if the previous bad trait always gives the evidence of the defendant being guilty. The dilemma is whether if good or bad trait of the defendant is enough evidence.[1]. However, the bad or good character is only proof of the usual reputation of the individual. The bad trait earlier governed through a sequential usual regulatory law, presently contained under the part 11 of chapter 1 in the act of criminal justice Of The year 2003. The regulation of common law is currently abolished.

ROLE OF THE EVIDENCE OF CHARACTER

There exist two major causes to seek adduced character evidence. The first one is associated with the dependent for suggesting that either the charge seems to remain largely true, indicating a bad trait, or it seems to be not much true, indicating a good trait. While the other one is associated with the witness, which includes the defendant[2] For undermining a strengthening the witness's credibility. Taking reference to the case-law of R v Anderson [1990] Crim LR 862, Another question arises if a good trait of the defendant is already provided, then the estimation of the probability that the defendant is accountable for the alleged offence.

Taking reference from the case-law of R v Hunter [2015] EWCA 631, there is recognition of five distinct categories regarding a good trait which includes absolutely good trait stating no earlier convections as well as entitlement to both of the limbs in the direction of Vye; the effective good trait skating some older or minor convictions which are not suitable to be charged and the judge is required to decide that if the defendant has an effectively good trait or not; while adducing the earlier cautions or convictions by the defendant, not being entitled towards that direction however being at the judge's discretion; no earlier convection, however, the prosecution is reliable on the distinct conduct[3] Of reprehension whereby it might provide both of the bad as well as good trait-based direction; and not having earlier convection however the dependent admitting various conduction of reprehension, discretion of jury for providing good trait-based direction.

As Stated under the section 98 of the criminal justice Act Of The year 2003, the bad character is determined with appropriate References to evidence the bad trait open individual there is a need of evidence regarding the misconduct or disposition on his behalf in addition to the evidence that is required to remain with alleged offensive facts to charge the defendant or that is the evidence regarding misconduct which is associated with prosecution or investigation of the given offence.

The bad trait is defined as misconduct according to the broader definition of section 112 under the criminal justice Act Of The year 2003. It consists of the evidence regarding the earlier convections of an individual along with the evidence[4] that is used to charge the defendant, however not acquitted or convicted or the conduct which is no amount to the offence of crime, however, which includes the behaviour of reprehension. It is essential to find that within section 98 of the act, there is no applicability of conducting that is associated with facts of the alleged offence, which is used to charge the defendant. The major focus is on introducing the bad trait of the defendant. However, the bad trait of a non–defendant is further admitted under section 100 of the criminal justice act, 2003. There remain certain regulations as well as time restrictions under rule 21 of criminal procedure, which governs the bad traits.

THE METHOD OF ADMITTING BAD TRAIT

The bad trait plays an essential role during proceedings and investigations. It is supposed to create an important part regarding evidence against the defendant in the form of the bad trait being relevant to issuing guilt and credits. Hence, it can be considered important that there occurs an establishment of convections that are based on the earlier facts[5]Along with the used defences, the plea of guilty and various others. In case of having major evidence of bad traits, there should not be any undertaking of prosecution. A piece of bad trait evidence is not supposed to be utilized for bolstering any weaker case. The notice is required to be served by the prosecution regarding the adduced evidence of bad trait, and in case of having no agreement, it must be proved through the conviction certificate or through calling the witness, as stated under the CPR 21. A notice is required to be served by the prosecution regarding the adduced evidence of bad trait, and in case of not having an agreement, it is required to be proved by the conviction certificate, as stated under the calling of a witness or section 74 of the PACE. After the serving of notice in a prescribed way, the difference is required to give the application in case of having appropriate for excluding it. Along with this, the defence is required to remain stuck with the compulsory regulations concerning the time restrictions, the cause behind the exclusion, and various associated details.

GOOD TRAIT AND ITS ASSUMPTIONS

When the earlier conviction is absent, it is accepted in the form of a good trait indicating a clear record with no past conviction. It does not require any sort of positive proof, but positive proof can be provided, such as in the form of charitable tasks or social services. There is no need to create evidence for the court. The evidence is considered a good trait until there is an agreement in the respect. Being a lawyer of defence, an individual desires to have an introduction with the evidence regarding good traits. The client is required to represent a good character.[6] By making the Jury in their favour. For this, the Jury is to make believe that the offence or crime is not a character of the defence. It can be done by making him like the client. However, it is not supposed to be an issue that the prosecution would be very keen on because the prosecution is about to paint a poor picture of it concerning the individual who committed the severe offence as a bad individual. While taking an account the introduction of evidence regarding good traits, in case of not having agreement by both sides, the individual is noted to be called to give testimony. Therefore the witness is to be brought, the witness of character is going to take a stand and is likely to provide evidence. Hence it is termed the evidence. With effect, it should be presented before the court, which gives allowance to the defence for examining their capabilities in chief. These social services or releasing of charity and various others make the Jury take various pieces of evidence of introduction in the cold. However, it is supposed that the prosecution will shut down these up to the possible extent[7]. During the cross-examination of the prosecution, it provides an opportunity for asking witnesses, which are questions it seems to turn and reveal the presence of the defence at the time of occurrence of the offence. It might create a situation of neither having evidence of committing the crime nor being caught. By happening this, only the individual escapable from visualizing the interesting facts, which might not advance. The arguments stating that an individual committed the crime and shirting down earlier when the evidence is summoned provide both sides with that opportunity for effectively challenging the evidence. The judges are related to the standardized directions regarding their sayings towards the Jury. A direction can be considered absolute or transformed in case some minor convection is not regarded. Taking reference from the case law of R v Hamer of the year 2010 EWCA Crim 2053, as well as the case law of R v Styles of the year 2015 EWCA Crim 1619, a script is utilized from the Compendium of the crown Court.[8]2020 which is utilized in case there remains no earlier convection, or in case their girls some of the minor convictions which are not regarded, and there is a scope of modification in the standardized directions.

Taking reference from the case-law of R v Aziz [1995] 3 WLR 53, the court can have the discretion of not giving meaningless or absurd direction regarding good traits, specifically during the admitting of the defendant regarding other behaviours of reprehension. Taking the assumption that the defendant has been subjection to questioning by police. While being interviewed, some of their behaviour is admitted to Lee. For example, considering a sexual crime, there is no offensive admission; rather, it is considered a behaviour. It can be denoted quite similarly; however not essentially a criminal. Instead, it can be a behaviour of reprehension. If still that individual is represented as a good one, however, it completely turns out when they further admit the horrible crime. Then the court has discretion in case it has distortions.[9] Of meaning or was making observed consequence with the given direction in the form of having the final discretion for amending the given discretion.

THE DIRECTIONS REGARDING GOOD TRAIT AND THEIR ASSUMPTIONS

Taking an instance from a compendium of crown code from Chapter 11 as well as various other instances, it can be visualized. The standardized directions have relevance to the propensity as well as the credibility of D in the form of a good trait and a positive characteristic regarding the case of D. It indicates a weight towards the Jury. It was heard that there was no earlier conviction of D. A good trait, however, is not the difference for the charge. Still, it has its relevance in two different ways. Initially, the defendant provides evidence[10]. The good trait of D is the positive characteristic that is required to be considered in their favour while considering the acceptance of D or not. Any second one states the fact that the D is not considered to be offended in past years, which might make Atlas probable that the act which is an alleged by the prosecution regarding the given case is performed by D. The importance associated with the good features of the character of the D along with the extent of their assistance regarding the fact of the given case are the two bases which are considered while taking decision. While assessing, it is required to analyse every detail which is found regarding the D.

THE BAD TRAIT OF THE NON–DEFENDANT

According to section 100 of the criminal justice Act Of The year 2003, there is evidence regarding the bad trait of an individual rather than the admissibility of D, only in case it is considered essential to provide the evidence or explanation; they exist a substantial[11] Probating value in association with the method of issuing or in respect to the whole case, or when all of the parties give agreement regarding the admissibility of the evidence.

CONCLUSION

The influence of earlier convection on the evidence regarding good traits includes most of the obvious blemishes towards the good trait of the defendant. Till there exists the situation whereby the defendant having earlier conventions might get the advantage from the direction of the judge in case the conviction is either too unrelated to the prevailing charge or is very old or have no influence on credibility. In case the crime was committed quite earlier, or that offence is associated with any other sort of offence. The D has an entitlement.[12] of initial credibility of limb, in case he provided the evidence as well as transform the second direction regarding limb such as having no earlier convictions of D which is relevant to the current situation.

REFERENCES

Bavli, Hillel J. "Objective Chance and the Rule against Character Evidence." Available at SSRN 3883579 (2020).

Cocks, H. G. "Trials of character: the use of character evidence in Victorian sodomy trials." In Domestic and international trials, 1700–2000, pp. 36-53. Manchester University Press, 2018.

Cowan, Sharon. "The use of sexual history and bad character evidence in Scottish sexual offences trials." Glasgow: Equality and Human Rights Commission (2020).

Ferris, Graham. "Character Evidence in the Courts of Classical Athens: Rhetoric, Relevance and the Rule of Law." (2018): 114.

Harges, Bobby, and Ilijana Todorovic. "Is Louisiana Shutting Its Doors in the Face of Probative and Reliable Opinion Character Evidence?" Loy. L. Rev. 65 (2019): 169.

Hosen, Altaf. "Relevancy of Character as Evidence and Judicial Approach Towards Rape Victims." PhD diss., East-West University, 2019.

Smith, Jacob, and Georgi Gardiner. "Opacity of Character: Virtue Ethics and the Legal Admissibility of Character Evidence." Philosophical Issues 31, no. 1 (2021): 334-354.

Zhang, Hao, I-Fan Su, Fei Chen, Manwa L. Ng, Lan Wang, and Nan Yan. "The time course of orthographic and semantic activation in Chinese character recognition: Evidence from an ERP study." Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 35, no. 3 (2020): 292-309.

[1] Hosen, Altaf. "Relevancy of Character as Evidence and Judicial Approach Towards Rape Victims." PhD diss., East-West University, 2019.

[2] Cocks, H. G. "Trials of character: the use of character evidence in Victorian sodomy trials." In Domestic and international trials, 1700–2000, pp. 36-53. Manchester University Press, 2018.

[3] Smith, Jacob, and Georgi Gardiner. "Opacity of Character: Virtue Ethics and the Legal Admissibility of Character Evidence." Philosophical Issues 31, no. 1 (2021): 334-354.

[4] Zhang, Hao, I-Fan Su, Fei Chen, Manwa L. Ng, Lan Wang, and Nan Yan. "The time course of orthographic and semantic activation in Chinese character recognition: Evidence from an ERP study." Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 35, no. 3 (2020): 292-309.

[5] Harges, Bobby, and Ilijana Todorovic. "Is Louisiana Shutting Its Doors in the Face of Probative and Reliable Opinion Character Evidence?" Loy. L. Rev. 65 (2019): 169.

[6] Ferris, Graham. "Character Evidence in the Courts of Classical Athens: Rhetoric, Relevance and the Rule of Law." (2018): 114.

[7] Zhang, Hao, I-Fan Su, Fei Chen, Manwa L. Ng, Lan Wang, and Nan Yan. "The time course of orthographic and semantic activation in Chinese character recognition: Evidence from an ERP study." Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 35, no. 3 (2020): 292-309.

[8] Bavli, Hillel J. "Objective Chance and the Rule against Character Evidence." Available at SSRN 3883579 (2020).

[9] Cowan, Sharon. "The use of sexual history and bad character evidence in Scottish sexual offences trials." Glasgow: Equality and Human Rights Commission (2020).

[10] Smith, Jacob, and Georgi Gardiner. "Opacity of Character: Virtue Ethics and the Legal Admissibility of Character Evidence." Philosophical Issues 31, no. 1 (2021): 334-354.

[11] Hosen, Altaf. "Relevancy of Character as Evidence and Judicial Approach Towards Rape Victims." PhD diss., East-West University, 2019.

[12] Cocks, H. G. "Trials of character: the use of character evidence in Victorian sodomy trials." In Domestic and international trials, 1700–2000, pp. 36-53. Manchester University Press, 2018.

35% OFF
Get best price for your work
  • 54000+ Project Delivered
  • 500+ Experts 24*7 Online Help

offer valid for limited time only*

×