The criminal justice act 2003

The Criminal Justice Act of 2003

The criminal justice act of 2003 made changes to the law regarding the admissibility of proof of a defendant’s bad character as well as that of non-defendants. However, there was debate over the changes. For instance, Tony Blair, the former prime minister, said at the time that the changes were intended to prioritize the victims of crimes while ensuring that justice is carried out. The criminal defendants’ rights and freedoms were never intended to be threatened by the amendments, unless the facts of the case so required. The three cases, R v. Edward, R v. Highton, and R v. Hanson, demonstrate this. In the case, R v Edward, it was determined that Mr. Chohan was of a bad character based on the several criminal convictions he had been convicted. For instance, several allegations had been forwarded against him, including the supplying of heroin to Donna Marsh. In addition, he had previously committed several crimes such as robbery, specifically targeting the elderly. Therefore, based on his previous records of conviction the court was entitled to foresee the likelihood of him telling the lies on the currents cases. It was determined that he was indeed a man of bad character and for those reasons the appeal against his conviction was refused (Spencer Maureen, and John Spencer, 2015, 159).

R v Highton

The second case is on R v Highton. The defendant had appealed the court’s decision that was made based on his previous involvement in crimes. The ongoing case was on kidnapping and robbery. However, in its decision, the court found him admissible of several other offenses. Based on his bad character, the court sentenced him to four years for each count and the sentence was to run concurrently. However, the appeal court found that the appellant’s bad character was admissible under.101 (1) g. Therefore, the appeal court upheld the decision previously made (“Highton & Ors, R V [2005] EWCA Crim 1985 (28 July 2005)”).

R v Hanson

The third case focuses on the case of R v Hanson. The defendant had been accused of burglary and pleaded guilty of the same. However, the court took into consideration his character and previous convictions. The court ruled that there was no doubt that the defendant had a bad character. After conviction, he went forward to contest the consideration of his bad character in the sentence. However, the appeal court found that he was admissible of several bad characters and offenses thus Refused his application for leave to appeal against the court’s decision (“Hanson, R. V [2005] EWCA Crim 824 (22 March 2005)”).

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is indeed true that the bad/good character evidence law is unlikely to present treats to the right of the defendants. This is true because consideration of the defendant’s character puts focus on the rights of the accused. However, it does not threaten the defendant’s rights since in its application; the judges consider a lot of options as in the cases above, before rendering the accused admissible bad character or otherwise.

Work Cited

“Hanson, R. V [2005] EWCA Crim 824 (22 March 2005)”. Bailii.org. Web. 5 May 2017.

“Highton & Ors, R V [2005] EWCA Crim 1985 (28 July 2005)”. Bailii.org. N.p., 2005.

Web. 5 May 2017.

Top of Form

Spencer, Maureen, and John Spencer. Evidence: Law Revision & Study Guide. , 2015. Print.

Bottom of Form