What is the general rule of character evidence?
Evidence which has little bearing on the case in hand may be held inadmissible on the basis that it relates to a “collateral issue”, rather than to the facts which have to be decided by the court.
This operates principally to exclude character evidence.
What is collateral evidence?
Evidence that doesn’t render the existence of the fact in issue more or less probable, would just confuse the trier of fact (judge or jury).
What are the 5 categories of character evidence?
1) Evidence of prior (mis)conduct by the accused
2) Evidence of the accused’s character (previous convictions)
3) Evidence of the character of a complainer
4) Evidence of the character of a complainer in sex offence cases
5) Evidence of the character of a witness
prior misconduct by the accused
Can provide context and corroboration for the charge faced.
May be admissible if relevant enough to help prove the offence the accused is charged with, rather than simply undermining their credibility.
HM Advocate v Joseph 1929
Guy committed a crime in Belgium, couldn’t be charged with it in Scotland but it could be admitted as evidence of prior misconduct.
previous convictions of the accused
s. 101 + 270 of the CPSA 1995
evidence of a complainer’s character
Generally inadmissible except for two special cases:
- In violent crimes where self-defence is pled, it may be relevant to show that the victim or complainer had a violent temperament, but not (normally) to prove specific acts of violence committed by that person.
- Sexual offences: evidence of the sexual history of a complainer is normally prohibited, but the accused may apply to lead such evidence or question the complainer on such matters if narrow statutory criteria are satisfied.
s. 274-275 of the CPSA 1995
evidence relating to sexual offences
s. 274 of the CPSA 1995
evidence of a witness’s character
A witness’s character may be challenged in cross-examination but it is not normally competent to lead evidence of their character. (Dickie v HMA)
s. 263(4) CPSA 1995
James Ritchie and Andrew Morren (1841)
Where two men were charged with passing false coins off as genuine, evidence to show they had unsuccessfully attempted to do this on a number of earlier occasions was held admissible.
Carberry v HM Advocate 1975
A statement by the accused referring to a man he had met “when they had both been in Barlinnie” was inadmissible due to how it referred to his previous conviction.
