An offence which may never be shown without reference to bad character would plainly be one which would fall within area 98(a).

An offence which may never be shown without reference to bad character would plainly be one which would fall within area 98(a).

An offense which may never be shown regardless of bad character would obviously be one which would fall within part 98(a). Samples of these would consist of driving whilst disqualified contrary to area 103 for the path Traffic Act 1988 or control of the firearm having previously been convicted of an offence of imprisonment as opposed to section 21 associated with the Firearms Act 1968 in which the fact of a conviction that is previous a feature associated with actus reus.

The question of whether or not the evidence has to do with the facts of the offence is not always straightforward in other cases where proof of bad character is not an essential element of the offence. In R v McNeill 2007 EWCA Crim 2927 it was stated that

“the terms for the statute ‘has related to’ are words of prima facie broad application, albeit constituting a expression which includes to be construed when you look at the overall context regarding the bad character conditions of this 2003 Act…. It is a sufficient working style of these terms if an individual stated which they either obviously encompass proof associated with the so-called facts of a offense which will have already been admissible underneath the common law beyond your context of bad character of tendency, also prior to the Act, or alternatively as adopting such a thing straight strongly related the offense charged, supplied at the very least they certainly were fairly contemporaneous with and closely connected with its alleged facts ”.

The nexus envisaged by the court in McNeill had been temporal (declaration of the hazard to kill made 2 days after an offence that is alleged of hazard to kill admissible beneath the regards to area 98). The nexus that is temporal endorsed in R v Tirnaveanu 2007 EWCA Crim 1239 where in fact the misconduct desired become adduced showed a bit more than tendency (possession of documents showing participation in unlawful entry of Romanian nationals of occasions other than susceptible to the offense charged-if admissible at all then through among the gateways-see below). More modern authorities have actually recommended that a requirement that is temporal but a proven way of establishing a nexus; therefore where in actuality the proof is relied upon to ascertain motive, there isn’t any such temporal requirement (see R v Sule 2012 EWCA Crim 1130 and R v Ditta 2016 EWCA Crim 8). Nevertheless, as to proof motive, see below – ‘important explanatory evidence’.

In this respect, the actual situation of R v Lunkulu 2015 EWCA Crim 1350 provides some help where it had been stated that

“Section 98(a) included no necessary temporal qualification and applied to proof of incidents every time they took place provided that they certainly were related to the so-called facts regarding the offence” (proof past shooting and conviction for attempted murder strongly related establish an on-going gang associated feud where in actuality the issue ended up being identification).

There was a line that is fine proof believed to do aided by the facts associated with so-called offence and proof the admissibility of that might fall to be viewed through one of many gateways. Hence in R v Okokono 2014 EWCA Crim 2521 proof of a past conviction for possession of the blade had been regarded as ‘highly relevant’ up to a fee of a gang associated killing applying section 98(a) but would also provide been admissible under among the statutory gateways. See also R v M 2006 EWCA Crim 193 where in actuality the complainant in a rape situation ended up being cross examined about why she had, after a rape that is alleged made no problem and had found myself in a vehicle along with her attacker. That line of questioning allowed proof of her account of past threats to shoot her belief that M possessed a weapon. The court said this proof ‘had to do with’ the facts regarding the so-called offense but, or even, could have been admissible under gateway (c) as ‘important explanatory evidence’.