Bad Character Evidence and Reprehensible Behaviour
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12596035 |
|---|---|
| Authors | James Goudkamp (0000-0002-4512-2904, University of Wollongong, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2008 |
| Volume | 12 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 116-140 |
| Publication date | 2008-04-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | The International Journal of Evidence & Proof (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1365-7127 • E-ISSN: 1740-5572 |
| Publisher | SAGE Publishing (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.1350/ijep.2008.12.2.116 |
| OpenAlex | W1990121587 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 2 |
| References cited | 1 |
The Criminal Justice Act 2003 ushered in a new system for determining the admissibility of bad character evidence in criminal proceedings. Unfortunately, this system is riddled with anomalies and plagued by obscurity. These problems contaminate its core as it is unclear what constitutes ‘bad character’ evidence. This uncertainty is in large part due to the fact that the Act offers little clue as to the meaning of the words ‘reprehensible behaviour’, evidence of which is ‘bad character’ evidence. Accordingly, this article asks whether the decisions in which the expression ‘reprehensible behaviour’ has fallen for consideration shed light on its content. It is concluded that the authorities offer scant guidance and have introduced several difficulties
Character (mathematics · Criminal justice · Criminology · Economic Justice · Epistemology · Expression (computer science · Meaning (existential · Political science · Reasonable Doubt · Computer Science · Criminal Law and Evidence · Deception detection and forensic psychology · Jury Decision Making Processes · Law · Philosophy · Psychology
| Citations per year | 0.15 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2013 - 2022 (10) |
| Highly cited | No |