Bad Character Evidence Case Study

The objective of this paper is to demonstrate what a bad character evidence(BCE) is and whether Liam Parrish’s(LP) BCE of previous convictions should be admitted at trial.

The definition and admissibility of BC is governed by the Criminal Justice Act 2003(CJA).[1] BC is determined as “evidence of, or of a disposition towards misconduct” or evidence of a tendency towards misconduct.[2] Misconduct is defined as the commission of the offence or other reprehensible behaviour.[3]

What Citation Formats Do You Support?

We hear “Can you write in APA or MLA?” all the time—and the answer’s a big yes, plus way more! Our writers are wizards with every style—APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Turabian, you name it—delivering flawless formatting tailored to your assignment. Whether it’s a tricky in-text citation or a perfectly styled reference list, they’ve got the skills to make your paper academically spot-on.

LP is a non-defendant, this is vital as the admissibility of the BCE of non-defendant’s is governed by s.100.[4]

When considering what is admissible the Court need to be aware of the danger of breaching the right to a fair trial.[5] Also, the Court is required to consider a non-exhaustive list of factors in assessing whether the character is of substantial importance.[6]

Drug Possession

The first issue is whether the offence of drug possession will be regarded as BCE and whether it should be admitted at trial. It is a vital element to the case as a whole since Adam Harris(AH) stated that LP was a drug dealer. This assertion was reinforced by Rose Matthews’s who confirmed it in her statement as well.

Are Paper Services Legal?

Yes, completely! They’re a valid tool for getting sample papers to boost your own writing skills, and there’s nothing shady about that. Use them right—like a study guide or a model to learn from—and they’re a smart, ethical way to level up your grades without breaking any rules.

On the one hand, it can be argued that his conviction can be regarded as old since it was committed in 2008. As set out in s.100(3)(c)(ii) his drug conviction showed that LP was a drug dealer and this confirmed his alleged misconduct. Per Yaxley-Lennon[7] drug possession can be regarded as having substantial probative value in relation to his credibility, which is an important issue in the case. Also, the Court when assessing the probative value of evidence should take into consideration some relevant factors.[8] The older the incident, the less likely it is to show a propensity and therefore it will be inadmissible.

On the contrary, the age of the conviction can illustrate how long LP has been dealing with drugs. Therefore, his conviction can be regarded of substantial importance to the context of the case as a whole. As drug dealers often find themselves surrounded by dangerous people. LP alleged that did not see who his attacker was, so it’s a possibility that he may be attacked by someone else rather than AH.

Therefore, LP previous conviction of drug possession is more likely to be admissible as it has a substantial probative value in relation to something which is both “a matter in issue in the proceedings and is of substantial importance in the context of the case as a whole”.[9]

How Much for a Paper?

Prices start at $10 per page for undergrad work and go up to $21 for advanced levels, depending on urgency and any extras you toss in. Deadlines range from a lightning-fast 3 hours to a chill 14 days—plenty of wiggle room there! Plus, if you’re ordering big, you’ll snag 5-10% off, making it easier on your wallet while still getting top-notch quality.

Assault

The second issue is whether LP’s previous conviction for assault could be admitted. This is potentially formed part of the chain of past misconduct which might establish a propensity to commit similar offences. Therefore, propensity to commit this type of offence may be a matter in issue between prosecution and defence.[10]

It could be admitted under s.100(1)(b) as it is a matter in issue and his propensity to be violent has a probative value. In Braithwaite[11] the Court held that “BCE in relation to the witnesses was relevant both to their propensity to act aggressively and to their credibility”.[12] So, in this case, LP’s assault conviction may show a propensity to act aggressively as well. Thus, it would be a matter in issue to establish whether AH’s statements were true. There are similarities between AH’s statements (when he stated in the police interview that LP tried to hurt Rose) and the conviction itself.

This could be regarded as very important as to a matter in issue with substantial probative value that LP has a propensity to be violent. Moreover, the fact that the conviction is recent makes it more likely to be admissible.[13]

Will Anyone Find Out I Used You?

Nope—your secret’s locked down tight. We encrypt all your data with top-tier security, and every paper’s crafted fresh just for you, run through originality checks to prove it’s one-of-a-kind. No one—professors, classmates, or anyone—will ever know you teamed up with us, guaranteed.

Credibility

The propensity to untruthfulness may be a matter in issue between the prosecution and the defendant.[14] Credibility will always be an issue to some extent in any prosecution.[15] In the case ofGoddard[16] was established that only convictions of probative value and of substantial importance could be admitted.

As shown by the facts, LP had pleaded not guilty unsuccessfully to be acting in self-defence to an unprovoked attack. However, his argument was dismissed by the Court and it was found that LP had started the fight.

Furthermore, he lied under oath for an alibi in his third conviction. Therefore, LP previous convictions can be admitted as evidence to show his propensity for untruthfulness and thus his credibility.[17]

Do You Rely on AI?

Not even a little—our writers are real-deal experts with degrees, crafting every paper by hand with care and know-how. No AI shortcuts here; it’s all human skill, backed by thorough research and double-checked for uniqueness. You’re getting authentic work that stands out for all the right reasons.

Credibility is an issue of substantial importance and what sort of convictions are capable of affecting credibility can be found under s.100. In Andrew[18] the Court held that under s.100(1)(b)(i) creditworthiness of a witness is an important matter in issue.[19]

The test of creditworthiness being a matter in issue with substantial importance to the case illustrated in the leading case of Brewster.[20] Pitchford LJ set out a two-stage test. Firstly, if it is shown that creditworthiness is an issue of substantial importance. The second question is whether the BC relied upon is of substantial probative value in relation to that issue.[21] The test for whether previous convictions have probative value on the issue of creditworthiness will depend on the number, nature and age of the convictions.[22]

Applying this principle to LP’s creditworthiness, the conviction of preventing the course of justice and the fact that he pleaded not guilty should be admitted since is an issue of substantial importance. The convictions were relevant to credibility in the wider sense that they would affect a fair-minded jury’s assessment of the standing of the witness.[23]

Conclusion

Why Are You Top for Research Papers?

Our writers are Ph.D.-level pros who live for nailing the details—think deep research and razor-sharp arguments. We pair that with top plagiarism tools, free revisions to tweak anything you need, and fast turnarounds that don’t skimp on quality. Your research paper won’t just shine—it’ll set the bar.

Since LP is deceased, to examine his character the jury should be entitled to looked LP’s convictions as ‘cumulatively’ to get a more complete picture of LP’s character.[24]

The strongest argument is the intervening of justice conviction for two reasons. It is a recent conviction and it has direct effect on LP creditworthiness. The weakest point is LP’s drug conviction as it is from 2008. However, it was illustrated that it can be argued to show how long LP has been dealing with drugs.

Bibliography

Primary Sources

Who’s Behind My Essays?

You’re in good hands with degree-holding pros—many rocking Master’s or higher—who’ve crushed our tough vetting tests in writing and their fields. They’re your partners in this, hitting tight deadlines and academic standards with ease, all while tailoring every essay to your exact needs. No matter the topic, they’ve got the chops to make it stellar.

Table of cases

R v Andrew S [2006] EWCA Crim 1303

R v Anthony Weir & Others [2005] EWCA Crim 2886

R v Brewster & Cromwell [2010] 2 Cr App R 20

Is My Paper Original?

100%—we promise! Every paper’s written fresh from scratch—no AI, no copying—just solid research and proper citations from our expert writers. You can even request a plagiarism report to see it’s 95%+ unique, giving you total confidence it’s submission-ready and one-of-a-kind.

R v Campbell[2007] 1 WLR 2798

Regina v Leigh Goddard [2007] EWCA Crim 3134

Table of Legislation: UK

Criminal Justice Act 2003

Can You Do Any Citation Style?

Yep—APA, Turabian, IEEE, Chicago, MLA, whatever you throw at us! Our writers nail every detail of your chosen style, matching your guidelines down to the last comma and period. It’s all about making sure your paper fits academic expectations perfectly, no sweat.

Table of Legislation: EU

European Convention on Human Rights 1950

Secondary Sources

Books

Can I Adjust Instructions Later?

Absolutely—life happens, and we’re flexible! Chat with your writer anytime through our system to update details, tweak the focus, or add new requirements, and they’ll pivot fast to keep your paper on point. It’s all about making sure the final draft is exactly what you need, no stress involved.

Durston G., Evidence (2^nd edn, Oxford University Press 2011)

Glover R and Murphy P., Murphy On Evidence (14^th edn, Oxford University Press 2015)

Munday R., Evidence (8^th edn, Oxford University Press 2015)

Journal Articles

How Do I Get Started?

It’s super easy—order online with a few clicks, then track progress with drafts as your writer works their magic. Once it’s done, download it from your account, give it a once-over, and release payment only when you’re thrilled with the result. It’s fast, affordable, and built with students like you in mind!

Blair S., ‘Criminal Procedure’ [2016] SHRJ 72

[1] Criminal Justice Act 2003.

[2] Ibid, s.98.

[3] Ibid, s.112 (1).

How Fast for Rush Jobs?

We can crank out a killer paper in 24 hours—quality locked in, no shortcuts. Just set your deadline when you order, and our pros will hustle to deliver, even if you’re racing the clock. Perfect for those last-minute crunches without compromising on the good stuff.

[4] Ibid, s.100.

[5] European Convention on Human Rights 1950, Article 6.

[6] Ibid, s.100 (3).

[7] R v Anthony Weir & Others [2005] EWCA Crim 2886.

[8] Criminal Justice Act 2003, s.100 (3) (b).

Can You Handle Complex Subjects?

For sure! Our writers with advanced degrees dive into any topic—think quantum physics or medieval lit—with deep research and clear, sharp writing. They’ll tailor it to your academic level, ensuring it’s thorough yet easy to follow, no matter how tricky the subject gets.

[9] Criminal Justice Act 2003, s.100 (1) (b).

[10] Criminal Justice Act 2003, s.103 (1) (a).

[11] R v Braithwaite [2010] EWCA Crim 1082.

[12] Ibid, [13] (Lord Justice Hughes).

[13] Criminal Justice Act 2003 s.100(3).

How Do You Meet Prof Standards?

We stick to your rubric like glue—nailing the structure, depth, and tone your professor wants—then polish it with edits for that extra shine. Our writers know what profs look for, and we double-check every detail to make sure it’s submission-ready and grade-worthy.

[14] Ibid, s.101 (1) (d).

[15] R v Campbell [2007] 1 WLR 2798.

[16] Regina v Leigh Goddard [2007] EWCA Crim 3134, [13] (Lord Justice Gage).

[17] Gregory Durston, Evidence (2^nd edn, Oxford University Press 2011) 179.

What’s Your Editing Like?

Send us your draft and tell us your goals—we’ll refine it, tightening arguments and boosting clarity while keeping your unique voice intact. Our editors work fast, delivering pro-level results that make your paper pop, whether it’s a light touch-up or a deeper rework.

[18] R v Andrew S [2006] EWCA Crim 1303.

[19] Ibid, [7] (Lord Justice Laws).

[20] R v Brewster & Cromwell [2010] 2 Cr App R 20.

[21] Ibid, [23] (Lord Justice Pitchford).

[22] Criminal Justice Act 2003 s.100 (3).

Can You Pick My Topic?

Yes—we’ve got your back! We’ll brainstorm fresh, workable ideas tailored to your assignment, picking ones that spark interest and fit the scope. You choose the winner, and we’ll turn it into a standout paper that’s all yours.

[23] R v Brewster & Cromwell [2010] 2 Cr App R 20, [24].

[24] Scott Blair, ‘Criminal Procedure’ [2016] SHRJ 72, 6.