Mader, R. v

Evidence of a prosecution witness’s good character is generally inadmissible when tendered solely to show that the witness is truthful and should be believed. It is admissible, however, where it is relevant to a live issue in the trial and is not excluded by an ordinary exclusionary rule.

The possible issues are not closed. In a violence case where self-defence is raised, a complainant’s non-violent disposition may be relevant. If such evidence is admitted, the judge must explain its issue-specific relevance and limits, preserve the prosecution’s burden of proof, and avoid diluting any good-character direction for the defendant.

The applicant was convicted at Northampton Crown Court of wounding with intent contrary to section 18 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. He maintained that he had acted in self-defence after the complainant and the complainant’s partner stole property from him and the complainant attacked him.

The prosecution witnesses denied any theft or aggression. After the applicant gave evidence, the trial judge allowed the prosecution to prove, in rebuttal, that neither witness had previous convictions or cautions. The applicant sought an extension of time and leave to appeal against conviction, contending that this evidence improperly bolstered their credibility and rendered the conviction unsafe.

1. The applications were refused. The trial judge correctly admitted the evidence and gave proper directions. The conviction therefore remained safe.

2. The starting rule is that evidence of a prosecution witness’s good character cannot ordinarily be led merely to show that the witness is generally truthful and should be believed. That would improperly bolster credibility. But evidence of character or disposition is admissible where it is relevant to an issue in the trial and is not excluded by an ordinary exclusionary rule.

3. The relevant issues are not confined to a closed category. Where self-defence is raised to a charge of violence, evidence that the complainant has a non-violent disposition may logically be relevant to whether the alleged attack occurred. The court endorsed the principles in R v IWAT (Amado-Taylor) [2001] EWCA Crim 1898 and the subsequent authorities.

4. Admission on an issue-relevance basis requires careful control. The judge should identify the issue to which the evidence relates, explain its limited use to the jury, and ensure that it does not dilute either the Crown’s obligation to prove guilt or the protection afforded by a good-character direction for the defendant. The judge also retains the power to exclude evidence whose prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value.

5. Here, the witnesses’ absence of convictions was relevant to the competing accounts of the immediate circumstances in which the applicant used the knife. The judge made clear that it did not establish that they could not have used unlawful force, and then gave the applicant a full and fair good-character direction. The defence went beyond a merely robust assertion that the witnesses were lying.

6. The broad observations in R v Green [2017] EWCA Crim 1774 were not to be given wider or general application. They had been made without the benefit of the relevant authorities and did not displace the established issue-relevance analysis.

7. The explanation for the 158-day delay, based entirely on a change of representation, was also unsatisfactory. The applications for an extension of time and for leave to appeal against conviction were refused.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Refused the applications for an extension of time and for leave to appeal against conviction: [2018] EWCA Crim 2454.
• Crown Court at Northampton: On 16 October 2017, convicted the applicant by a 10:2 majority of wounding with intent contrary to section 18 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, and sentenced him to nine years’ imprisonment.