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