Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 45 views

    Tuto Character Evidence

    Uploaded by

    Khairun Nisaazwani
    This document discusses the admissibility of character evidence against an accused person in a criminal trial. It begins by describing two pieces of evidence in the current case - testimony from Constable Joe about the accused's prior arrest for selling pirated DVDs, and information from Gopal about the same. The main discussion is around Section 54(1) of the Evidence Act, which creates a "shield" protecting the accused from having their bad character introduced unless they first provide evidence of good character. Referring to past case law, the document states that attempting to identify the accused based on prior criminal records would breach this shield. It then applies this to the current case, arguing that the evidence from Joe and Gopal

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Tuto Character Evidence

    Uploaded by

    Khairun Nisaazwani
    45 views3 pages
    This document discusses the admissibility of character evidence against an accused person in a criminal trial. It begins by describing two pieces of evidence in the current case - testimony from Constable Joe about the accused's prior arrest for selling pirated DVDs, and information from Gopal about the same. The main discussion is around Section 54(1) of the Evidence Act, which creates a "shield" protecting the accused from having their bad character introduced unless they first provide evidence of good character. Referring to past case law, the document states that attempting to identify the accused based on prior criminal records would breach this shield. It then applies this to the current case, arguing that the evidence from Joe and Gopal

    Original Title

    TUTO CHARACTER EVIDENCE

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document discusses the admissibility of character evidence against an accused person in a criminal trial. It begins by describing two pieces of evidence in the current case - testimony from Constable Joe about the accused's prior arrest for selling pirated DVDs, and information from Gopal about the same. The main discussion is around Section 54(1) of the Evidence Act, which creates a "shield" protecting the accused from having their bad character introduced unless they first provide evidence of good character. Referring to past case law, the document states that attempting to identify the accused based on prior criminal records would breach this shield. It then applies this to the current case, arguing that the evidence from Joe and Gopal

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    45 views3 pages

    Tuto Character Evidence

    Uploaded by

    Khairun Nisaazwani
    This document discusses the admissibility of character evidence against an accused person in a criminal trial. It begins by describing two pieces of evidence in the current case - testimony from Constable Joe about the accused's prior arrest for selling pirated DVDs, and information from Gopal about the same. The main discussion is around Section 54(1) of the Evidence Act, which creates a "shield" protecting the accused from having their bad character introduced unless they first provide evidence of good character. Referring to past case law, the document states that attempting to identify the accused based on prior criminal records would breach this shield. It then applies this to the current case, arguing that the evidence from Joe and Gopal

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 3

    One part : character evidence - joe

    Second part : competency of accomplice - gopal

    The issue is whether the evidence of Constable Joe regarding the fact that Mamak had
    previously selling pirate dvd is relevant and admissible

    'Character' as in Phipson on Evidence was defined as a person's general reputation in a


    particular respect or disposition in a particular respect.

    General rule : the shield protecting accused under s 54(1)

    Where the tendering of evidence of bad character will cause the accused to be
    perceived as a bad person, the Evidence Act provides for shields against the accused's
    bad character. This can be seen in Section 54(1) of the Evidence Act which stated in
    criminal proceedings the fact that the accused person has bad character is irrelevant,
    unless evidence has been given that he has a good character, it which case it becomes
    relevant.

    The "shield" under this provision protects the accused throughout the hearing. In the
    case of Loke Soo Har v PP the use of photographs of known pickpockets to identify the
    accused and adducing it in evidence amounts to showing the bad character of the
    accused, thus rendering the evidence inadmissible.

    other

    Application :
    Applying to the situation, when Constable Joe gave evidence of previous arrest of
    Mamak for selling pirate dvd, and Gopal giving info regarding the same, it shows that
    the prosecutor is attempting to adduce the accused bad character as previous criminal
    records shows that a person is having a bad character as in the case of Loke Soo Har v
    PP. However by virtue of Section 54(1) Mamak is protected by a shield in which the
    evidence of his bad character is inadmissible and he will be protected by the shield
    during the whole trial

    NOTES

    Rebuttal - shield broken

    Section 54(2) -some kind of privilege that accused shall not be asked, or if asked, not
    answering it if the prosecution proposed question tending to show

    - Accused had committed some other offence previously


    - He had been charged some other offence previously
    - He had been convicted some other offence previously
    - Has a bad character

    for the first time, prior to this takde pun other question/evidence showing such.

    But if the court alrdy knew of such fact (any of those 4) then attempt of PP make
    such question does not mean that prosecution has intention to show the court the
    first time of the four facts above.

    Exception to the general rule (where accused no longer protected by the shield)

    Proviso (b) to S 54(2) got three limbs


    1. accused/his counsel gv evidence of his own good character
    2. Def ask question for the purpose of establishing the accused’s good
    character
    3. During prosecution case, def attempt to cast imputations on prosecution
    (witness/complainant)

    Accused : “Oi you Mona b***h drunkard liar blabla you’re lying to the court
    i didnt rape you” (against the prosecution witness/complainant)

    *shield stripped off*

    The prosecution through joe’s evidence attempting to show the court for the first
    time that Mamak has committed/convicted of other offence that is selling pirate
    dvd.

    BACA CASE
    R V BUTTERWASSER
    SELVEY V PP

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy