Director of public prosecutions says mens sexual history should be allowed as evidence in court

[QuentinSummers]

If they have a history of coercive or abusive behaviour or if they were doing things around the time of the rape that was cause for concern.
Alison Saunders says she wants to enable juries to assess the whole picture.

I think this is a great move. Well done Alison Saunders

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/08/rape-juries-hear-mens-sexual-history-increase-chance-conviction/

About time too

This is a very positive and interesting development. I hadn't heard much about Alison Saunders (through my own fault I'm sure) but she seems to be doing great work.

Good idea.

It's an interesting point for debate. If I understand it correctly, the current principle is that cases should be tried on the evidence and not on the character of the accused. Isn't that why previous convictions are not referenced until at least a verdict has been reached?
However, if someone has a history of violence, abusive behaviour, sexual assault etc how can that not be relevant? The fact is jurors will make judgements based on their perception of the accused character "he seems such a nice man...." etc so their are judging character already, why not do so with hard facts?

They're judging the victim's character all the time, too.

So, only fair to also judge the accused man's character.

Quite shocking it isn't already allowed. In any other scenario in court they always talk about how the guy was a bad dude, with a bad history, always getting trouble, etc. Reminds me of 12 Angry Men, brilliant movie.

Is that true?

I suppose it depends on the crime. Male violence against women means the man is lauded as such a nice man and oh, we don't want to ruin his future, et cetera.

But I can imagine that crimes associated with race and poverty, such as, I don't know, drug dealing? Petty theft? Might get another treatment.

At the very least, if any part of the victim's life is used, the same should go for the accused.

In any other scenario in court they always talk about how the guy was a bad dude...

*Is that true?

I don't know how I feel about it- just makes me uneasy for the backlash.*

It isn't true. The rules of evidence generally prevent evidence about 'bad character', though there are exceptions to this. But the basic principle is that a defendant is tried on the facts of the instant case (and not on the basis of allegations/previous convictions).

However, rape is a very particular case, because defendants can (and do) in certain circumstances adduce evidence about the character of the complainant (in other words their sexual behaviour). Given this, there is an argument to be made I think in rape cases for 'equality of arms' if you like.

"It isn't true. The rules of evidence generally prevent evidence about 'bad character', though there are exceptions to this. But the basic principle is that a defendant is tried on the facts of the instant case (and not on the basis of allegations/previous convictions). "

Really? I didn't know. Seems like every court/cop show ever is wrong then.

I did jury duty last year and we were told about a defendant's previous lengthy list of convictions for burglary (it was given to us on a sheet of 'agreed facts'). I was surprised as my only previous knowledge of trials was Law and Order where previous convictions are always deemed too prejudicial!

When I did jury service we were told nothing about the defendant's background at all during the trial. Only once the verdict was given there was more information given about the defendant.

FurryGiraffe

It's the old 'if I had a cup of tea yesterday, it doesn't mean I want today', scenario.

Which is why dragging up a person's sex life is certainly disadvantageous to women. And I'd have to assume, could be for men in terms of being tried on the facts of the current case alone.

Which is why, as I said, if there is any attempt to use the sex life of the victim, all bets are off in terms of the accused.

AssassinatedBeauty and stitchglitched

Are you from different countries? That sounds extraordinary.

But about if they interrogate the detective "how did you come to first look at the accused - he is a known burglar", not allowed?

I'm in the UK Datun. I was also on a sexual assault case during the same jury service and we found out the defendant had previous convictions for violence but I cannot remember if that came out after the verdict or before. We did find out after the verdict that he had previously pled guilty then changed his plea and done a runner!

You can adduce bad character evidence in some circumstances. One is if facts relating to bad character form part of the defence: basically the defendant can waive their right to exclude. That might be the case for stitchglitched's scenario.

Once the jury have reached a verdict on the facts, the judge can take previous convictions into account in sentencing. That's absolutely standard and sounds as though that's what happened in the case assassinatedbeauty talks about.

Just found this on the CPS site which might be relevant:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/atooc/badcharacterrevidence/#admissibility

I'm not a lawyer, but I think the gist is that if it's relevant to the case it can be included, or if it's admitted by the defendant it can be included, for example.

So in my case the defendant actually had no convictions and no history with the police so there was nothing to bring to the trial. In stichglitched trial it sounds like the history of convictions was directly relevant and had been agreed by both sides to be included as information.

FurryGiraffe that might be the case then, his defence was that he was a reformed character and had turned his life around so to speak. And also that he was an experienced burglar and wouldn't have been caught in the way he was.

FurryGiraffe that might be the case then, his defence was that he was a reformed character and had turned his life around so to speak. And also that he was an experienced burglar and wouldn't have been caught in the way he was.

Yeah, tricky to run that one without admission of bad character!

About time too.

I feel they should be able to reference whether the accused had a condom in his wallet or was wearing nice underwear, whether he limited the amount he drunk, whether he was bragging to his mates about sexual conquests. But that's problem going to far (treating him like a women).

That link didn't work, but I think it was to this page: www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/bad_character_evidence/

It looks v informative.

[from that link]

Bad Character of Defendants
Admissibility
There is a two stage test for admissibility:

1. The evidence must be admissible through one or more of the seven gateways set out in section 101 Criminal Justice Act 2003:

(a) all parties to the proceedings agree to the evidence being admissible;
(b) the evidence is adduced by the defendant himself or is given in answer to a question asked by him in cross examination and intended to elicit it;
(c) it is important explanatory evidence;
(d) it is relevant to an important matter in issue between the defendant and the prosecution, which includes:

whether the defendant has a propensity to commit offences of the kind with which he is charged, except where such propensity makes it no more likely that he is guilty of the offence(section 103(1)(a) Criminal Justice Act 2003);
whether the defendant has a propensity to be untruthful, except where it is not suggested that the defendant's case is untruthful in any respect (section 103(1)(b) Criminal Justice Act 2003);
(e) it has substantial probative value in relation to an important matter in issue between the defendant and a co-defendant;
(f) it is evidence to correct a false impression given by the defendant; or
(g) the defendant has made an attack on another person's character.

1. The evidence is admissible if it falls within section 101(1) (a) (b) (c) (e) and (f) Criminal Justice Act 2003. Where the evidence falls with section 101(d) or (g) it is admissible unless, on application by a defendant, it has such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it.