During cross examination Y was asked if she was a person of good character non

During cross examination y was asked if she was a

This preview shows page 6 - 7 out of 9 pages.

against her boyfriend. During cross-examination Y was asked if she was a person of good character & non-violent by nature. When she agreed to both suggestions, Crown was allowed to cross-examine her regarding a previous assault on the same victim 15months earlier. On appeal this evidence was not allowed as Y did not raise her good character the Crown did & was not appropriate for Crown to trigger the introduction of prohibited evidence 2. Casting imputations on the character of a Crown witness RULE: The shield will not be lost if the attacks on the witness’s character are those necessary for the proper development of the defence , BUT it will be lost if the accused makes quite gratuitous imputations (accusations that are not necessarily involved in the proper conduct of his defence): R v Gramanatz Gibbs CJ Selvey v DPP: accused held to have crossed the line when he alleged his vic was a male prostitute Phillips: P was accused of rape of a young woman, C, in the bedroom of the flat she occupied. Main evidence against P was his fingerprints on the window frame at C’s flat. At trial P testified that C was a neighbour & they occasionally smoked cannabis together. Crown was allowed to cross under 15(2)(c) regarding his previous convictions for dishonesty. HELD: P went too far – could simply have testified that they had a casual social relationship DPP v Kocoglu: Counsel for K was allowed to cross-examine the main Crown witness against him in respect of his previous drug offences without K having his own criminal record exposed to the jury. It was relevant to K’s defence that he, the deceased & the witness were associated in drug dealings & others may have had a motive for killing the deceased 3. Attacking the character of a co-accused NOTE: this is not the same as giving evidence against the co-accused under 15(2)(d) Although this section provides for the possibility of A to attack character of B most likely to occur under 15(2)(d) [4] Giving evidence against a co-accused 15(2)(d) The evidence of character adduced against A will not only go to their credit as a witness, but also to their guilt or related issues in the case: Lui Mei Lin v The Queen Whether or not A has given evidence against B is a matter of judicial discretion & the test is objective ‘Evidence against’ means evidence which would rationally support the Crowns case against B or undermine their defence: Davies Lawton J B’s counsel is given the right to fight back & adduce evidence of A’s character without seeking judicial leave: 15(3) Can only be done by counsel for the co-accused but Crown will benefit indirectly from the cut throat defence Davies: A & B were jointly charged with theft of a gold chain bearing cross – there was evidence that it must have been one of them who did it. B gave evidence that A stole it & not him. A retaliated by denying any involvement in the theft & further conceded that since it had not been him who stole it, it must have been B, although he was not necessarily asserting that. Counsel for B was allowed to cross-examine A on his previous
Image of page 6
Image of page 7

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 9 pages?

  • Two '17
  • craig
  • Evidence law, CROWN

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

Stuck? We have tutors online 24/7 who can help you get unstuck.
A+ icon
Ask Expert Tutors You can ask You can ask You can ask (will expire )
Answers in as fast as 15 minutes