Scribd
Upload
24 views2 pages

Admissibility of Bad Character Evidence

Uploaded by

jonahhill1096
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
24 views2 pages

Admissibility of Bad Character Evidence

Uploaded by

jonahhill1096
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Bad Character

Section 82(1) of the Act provides that except as provided in this section,
evidence of the part that a defendant is of bad character is inadmissible in
criminal proceedings. However, under Section 82(2) of the Act the fact that a
defendant is of bad character is admissible in the following circumstances:

A. When the bad character of the defendant is a fact in issue.


B. When the defendant has given evidence of his good character.
C. If evidence of bad character is an ingredient in the offense
committed.

As noted above, flowing from the provisions of Section 82(1) of the Evidence
Act the evidence of bad character of the defendant is generally inadmissible.
The exceptions as provided under section 82(2a) evidence of bad character
is relevant where the evidence of bad character of the person is in issue.
Furthermore, if the evidence of bad character is an ingredient of your first
charge, then it is relevant and admissible also. Such bad character may
include previous conviction. See section 250(1) of the Criminal Code. For
example the proof of previous conviction for being an idle and disorderly
person is a necessary ingredient to establish the offence of being a rogue
and vagabond. Such previous conviction must therefore be proved by the
prosecution. The position of the law is the same in a similar offence of being
an incorrigible vagabond

Secondly, under section 82(2b) of the Evidence Act, evidence of bad


character is relevant and admissible when the defendant has given evidence
of his good character in order for the prosecution to report to such evidence
of good character. The prosecution is entitled to elicit such evidence as a
rebuttal either through cross examination or through another witness.

Thirdly, under section 82(3) Evidence Act, evidence of bad character is


relevant and admissible in circumstances mentioned in paragraph g section
180 evidence act which provides for freedom against self incrimination.
Although a defendant can be called as a witness in his own trial. He shall not
be asked and if asked he shall not be compelled to answer any question
tending to show that he has committed or have been convicted or been
charged of any offence except to the extent of the current charge.

The proviso under which evidence of bad character can be proved include
the following:
I. When proved that he has committed or has been convicted of such
other offence is admissible i.e. evidence that he is guilty of the
offence with which he is charged. In the case of R. V. Coker (1960)
2QB 202, in this case, cross examination as to a previous charge,
even though it related to an issue of liability was held inadmissible.
The accused was charged with breaking and entering a dwelling
house with the intent to steal therein. His defense was that he had
entered the house in order to keep warm and to have a sleep.
During his cross examination he denied knowing that it was an
offence to enter a house in order to sleep. The judge thereupon
allowed the prosecution to put questions concerning a previous
charge of breaking and entering which had resulted in acquittal in
order to show that the accused person had learnt during that trial
that it was an offence to enter a house in order to sleep therein. It
was held by the criminal court of appeal that the questions
concerning the previous charge had been wrongly admitted.

II. Where he has asked questions of the prosecution witness tending to


show his good character or cast aspersion on the character of the
accused person.

III. Where he has given evidence against any other person charged
with the same offence. It should be noted that the cross
examination of the accused person or the defendant in any other
matter covered in this exception where none of the exceptions is
admissible may generally lead to the quashing. In the case of
Odutade v. The Police (1952) 20NLR pg. 51, the appellant was
charged with others for stealing and receiving stolen property, and
with himself for being a rogue and vagabond presumably under
section 250 of the Criminal Code. Evidence of conviction of over 10
years old was given and admitted. On an appeal, it was argued for
the police that the convictions were put in for the purpose of
proving the vagrancy charged. It was however held that the
evidence should not have been allowed as to the whole purpose of
the charge of being a rogue and vagabond was apparently to
prejudice the fair trial of the appellant. In the case of R. v. Austin
(1958) CLR 129 with similar facts of being previously convicted at
quarter sections of receiving stolen goods knowing them to have
been stolen. On appeal his conviction was quashed.

Common questions

Powered by AI

Evidence of a defendant's bad character is admissible under certain circumstances: when the bad character is a fact in issue, when the defendant has given evidence of good character, or when bad character is an ingredient in the offense committed .

Section 82 of the Evidence Act balances legal rights by generally making evidence of bad character inadmissible to protect defendants from prejudice, while allowing exceptions where the relevance outweighs potential bias, such as when bad character is an issue or a rebuttal to claims of good character .

Previous conviction can be an essential ingredient in establishing certain offenses. For example, proving a previous conviction for being an idle and disorderly person is necessary to establish the offense of being a rogue and vagabond, which the prosecution must prove .

Exceptions to the inadmissibility of bad character evidence can conflict with fair trial principles by introducing potential biases against the defendant, thereby challenging impartiality. This is evident in cases where past convictions might unjustly influence the judgment of current charges, highlighting the tension between probative value and prejudice .

The R. v. Coker case illustrates that questions concerning a defendant's previous charges were held inadmissible when they related indirectly to liability. This case emphasizes the restriction of introducing past charges to establish awareness of their criminal nature unless certain conditions are met .

The prosecution can rebut evidence of a defendant's good character by presenting evidence of the defendant's bad character, either through cross-examination or through another witness, as allowed under Section 82(2b) of the Evidence Act .

Section 82 mitigates against self-incrimination by ensuring that a defendant cannot be compelled to answer questions related to past charges or convictions, except regarding the current charge, thus preventing the potential misuse of past conduct to establish character liability .

The evidence of previous conviction was inadmissible in the Odutade v. The Police case because it appeared to prejudice the fair trial of the appellant. Despite being used to prove vagrancy charges, the use of old convictions was seen as unjust influencing the trial .

Inadmissibility of bad character evidence can limit the prosecution's ability to challenge a defendant's credibility and force them to rely more heavily on other evidence or witness testimonies. It requires the prosecution to strategically consider when such evidence can be introduced legally under exceptions .

In R. v. Austin, the conviction was quashed due to the erroneous admission of evidence related to past receivership of stolen goods. This case demonstrates the importance of adhering to rules that prevent unfair prejudice against defendants by improperly introducing past convictions, reinforcing strict admissibility criteria for bad character evidence .

You might also like