Evidence law
The Criminal Justice Act 2003 aims at rebalancing the common law system that appeared reluctant to admit evidence from past criminal record of a defendant in the victims favor while at the same time ensuring that the defendant is fairly treated (Parsons, 2007). The basis of this act is that majority of crimes are committed through recidivism, meaning that the individuals with criminal record tend to re-offend. The individuals have the inclination to commit crimes and are likely to be faced with various criminal convictions. In regard to contesting the admissibility of previous evidence, it is necessary to consider whether the inadmissibility rules which may be rightly perceived as the major aim of the act are affected or just the admissibility rules of bad character evidence (Tandy, 2009). This is relevant in light of the distinction of common law between the rule and exception.
The admissibility of the previous evidence can be contested is the defense applies to have its exclusion under section 101(3). This is because the evidence can be admitted under section (d) of the act and even under subsection (g) (Monaghan, 2015). Subsection (d) holds that evidence should be admissible when it is relevant to a significant issue arising between the prosecution and the defendant (Monaghan, 2015). This considers the possibility of the defendant having propensity to commit such offences with which they have been charged apart from where the tendency does not make it more likely that the defendant is guilty. The other consideration involves the possibility of the defendant tendency to be untruthful apart from where there is no suggestion that his case is not true in any way. The subsection (g) holds that such evidence is admissible if the defendant has attacked the character of another individual (Monaghan, 2015).
In the case of Jason Long, the evidence is significant since it involves an issue between the prosecution and the defendant, where the prosecution refers to previous criminal record to argue for the Jason Long’s propensity to carry out such offenses and even tries to enhance the likelihood that he is guilty of this murder. The case tries involve Jason in the fan fighting considering that he referred to the supporters of Middletown as “scum”. The defense in this case may apply to have the exclusion of the previous evidence involving 2 convictions; assault that led to body harm and harassment where Jason was sentenced to 6 months in prison. However, the evidence is admissible since the Act does not allow the exclusion of bad character evidence by the court of its motion once the prosecutor has served notice highlighting that he intends to adduce bad character evidence. This means that the evidence from previous conviction that the prosecution intends to use to indicate the bad character of Jason Long is admissible. If the defendant states that he or she is of good character, the prosecution is entitled to adduce the evidence of their bad character in for of their past convictions.
When considering the application of bad character as provided in 2003 Act, the court should always regard the general principles that are established under the 1974 Rehabilitation Offenders Act (Monaghan, 2015). The judge should have access to the record of defendant statement so that to give a sentence if the evidence is admissible.
References
Monaghan, N. (2015). Law of Evidence. Cambridge University Press. 250-251
Parsons, S. (2007). The Criminal Justice Act 2003-do the bad character provisions represent a move towards an authoritarian model of criminal justice?.
Tandy, R. (2009). The Admissibility of a Defendant's Previous Criminal Record: A Critical Analysis of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Statute law review, 30(3), 203-216.
