R v Vye; R v Wise; R v Stephenson

R v Vye; R v Wise; R v Stephenson                           

 

     [1993] 3 All ER 241, [1993] 1 WLR 471, 97 Cr App Rep 134, 157 JP 953, [1993] 14 LS Gaz R 42, [1993] NLJR 400, (1993) Times, 22 February  

 

    Court: CA Crim

Judgment Date: 18/02/1993  

Catchwords & Digest

CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE AND PROCEDURE – CHARACTER OF ACCUSED – GOOD CHARACTER – CREDIBILITY AND PROPENSITY TO COMMIT OFFENCE – EFFECT OF DEFENDANT’S GOOD CHARACTER ON CREDIBILITY AND PROPENSITY TO COMMIT OFFENCE – DIRECTION TO JURY – DIRECTION TO JURY AS TO RELEVANCE OF GOOD CHARACTER TO CREDIBILITY WHERE DEFENDANT DOES NOT GIVE EVIDENCE BUT HAS MADE EXCULPATORY STATEMENTS TO POLICE ON WHICH HE RELIES AT TRIAL – DIRECTION TO JURY AS TO RELEVANCE OF GOOD CHARACTER TO PROPENSITY TO COMMIT OFFENCE

          Where the credibility or propensity to commit an offence of a defendant of good character, ie with no previous convictions, is in issue in a criminal trial the trial judge should give a direction as to the relevance of his good character to his credibility or likelihood of having committed the offence charged, whether or not he has testified or made pre-trial answers or statements at trial which he relies on. It is for the trial judge in each case to decide how directions as to character are to be tailored to the particular circumstances. The judge may for example, as is commonly done, indicate to the jury that good character cannot amount to a defence and, provided that he indicates the two respects in which good character might be relevant, ie going to credibility and propensity to commit an offence, the Court of Appeal will be slow to criticise any qualifying remarks based on the facts of the case.

A defendant of good character is entitled to have the judge direct the jury on character where he is jointly tried with a co-accused of bad character. In relation to the co-accused of bad character the judge may, depending on the circumstances, eg how great an issue has been made of character during the evidence and speeches, think it best to direct the jury that they must try the case on the evidence, that there was no evidence about the co-accused’s character, and that they must not speculate and must not take the absence of information as to the co-accused’s character as any evidence against him. Alternatively, the judge may think it best to say nothing about the absence of evidence as to the co-accused’s character.

 

Cases referring to this case

Annotations: All CasesCourt: ALL COURTS

Sort by: Judgment Date (Latest First)

Treatment Case Name Citations Court Date
Applied August v R [2017] 1 LRC 542 Belize CA 04/11/2016
dicta of Lord Taylor Applied R v H [2015] EWCA Crim 631,  [2016] 2 All ER 1021, [2015] 1 WLR 5367,  [2015] 2 Cr App Rep 116, 179 JP 487, [2015] All ER (D) 186 (Apr) CA Crim 16/04/2015
Applied Birbal v R (2012) 82 WIR 18,  [2013] 4 LRC 268 Bah CA 13/12/2012
Considered R v I [2012] EWCA Crim 2033,  [2013] Crim LR 152, [2012] All ER (D) 46 (Oct) CA Crim 05/10/2012
Applied R v D [2012] EWCA Crim 19,  [2012] 1 Cr App Rep 448,  176 JP 188, [2012] All ER (D) 143 (Jan) CA Crim 26/01/2012
Considered R v Gbajabiamila [2011] EWCA Crim 734,  [2011] All ER (D) 200 (Mar) CA Crim 17/03/2011
Considered R v Moustakim [2008] EWCA Crim 3096,  [2009] All ER (D) 176 (May) CA Crim 27/11/2008
Applied R v Nurse (2007) 72 WIR 52 Barb CA 22/02/2007
Considered R v Payton [2006] EWCA Crim 1226,  150 Sol Jo LB 741, [2006] All ER (D) 385 (May) CA Crim 26/05/2006
Applied Gilbert v The Queen [2006] UKPC 15,  [2006] 1 WLR 2108,  68 WIR 323, [2006] 4 LRC 594,  [2006] All ER (D) 469 (Mar) PC 27/03/2006
Dicta of Lord Taylor of Gosforth Considered Gilbert v The Queen [2006] UKPC 15,  [2006] 1 WLR 2108,  68 WIR 323, [2006] 4 LRC 594,  [2006] All ER (D) 469 (Mar) PC 27/03/2006
Applied Ramdhanie v State of Trinidad and Tobago [2005] UKPC 47,  [2006] 1 WLR 796,  67 WIR 340, [2006] 3 LRC 350,  [2005] All ER (D) 235 (Dec) PC 15/12/2005
Applied Singh v R [2005] UKPC 35,  [2005] 4 All ER 781,  [2006] 1 WLR 146, 68 WIR 424,  [2006] 2 LRC 409, [2005] All ER (D) 18 (Aug) PC 03/08/2005
Considered Teeluck v R [2005] UKPC 14,  [2005] 1 WLR 2421,  [2005] 2 Cr App Rep 378,  [2005] Crim LR 728, (2005) Times,  4 May, 66 WIR 319, [2005] 4 LRC 259,  [2005] All ER (D) 425 (Mar) PC 23/03/2005
Considered R v Young [2004] EWCA Crim 3520,  [2004] All ER (D) 119 (Dec) CA Crim 08/12/2004
Considered R v W [2004] EWCA Crim 3174,  [2004] All ER (D) 62 (Dec) CA Crim 03/12/2004
Considered R v Gray [2004] EWCA Crim 1074,  [2004] 2 Cr App Rep 498,  148 Sol Jo LB 665, [2004] All ER (D) 358 (Apr) CA Crim 30/04/2004
Applied R v Crump [2004] EWCA Crim 894,  [2004] All ER (D) 567 (Mar) CA Crim 30/03/2004
Applied Gilbert v R (2002) 66 WIR 158 E Carib CA 25/11/2002
Considered Sealey v State [2002] UKPC 52,  (2002) Times, 5 November,  61 WIR 491, [2003] 3 LRC 269,  [2002] All ER (D) 211 (Oct) PC 14/10/2002
Approved Langton v The State [2000] Lexis Citation 1680,  56 WIR 491 PC 15/05/2000
Explained R v Aziz [1996] AC 41,  [1995] 3 All ER 149,  [1995] 3 WLR 53, [1995] 2 Cr App Rep 478,  159 JP 669, [1995] Crim LR 897, [1995] 28 LS Gaz R 41,  [1995] NLJR 921, 139 Sol Jo LB 158, [1995] 3 LRC 254 HL 15/06/1995

 

Cases considered by this case

Annotations: All CasesCourt: ALL COURTS

Sort by: Judgment Date (Latest First)

Treatment Case Name Citations Court Date
Not Followed R v Gibson (1991) 93 Cr App Rep 9,  135 Sol Jo 574, (1991) Times,  18 April CA circa 1991

 

 

Document information

 

Court

 

Judgment date

18/02/1993

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailFacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *