(1)Rules of court may make such provision as appears to the appropriate authority to be necessary or expedient for the purposes of this Act; and the appropriate authority is the authority entitled to make the rules.
(2)The rules may, and, where the party in question is the prosecution, must, contain provision requiring a party who—
(a)proposes to adduce evidence of a defendant’s bad character, or
(b)proposes to cross-examine a witness with a view to eliciting such evidence,
to serve on the defendant such notice, and such particulars of or relating to the evidence, as may be prescribed.
(3)The rules may provide that the court or the defendant may, in such circumstances as may be prescribed, dispense with a requirement imposed by virtue of subsection (2).
(4)In considering the exercise of its powers with respect to costs, the court may take into account any failure by a party to comply with a requirement imposed by virtue of subsection (2) and not dispensed with by virtue of subsection (3).
(5)The rules may—
(a)limit the application of any provision of the rules to prescribed circumstances;
(b)subject any provision of the rules to prescribed exceptions;
(c)make different provision for different cases or circumstances.
(6)Nothing in this section prejudices the generality of any enactment conferring power to make rules of court; and no particular provision of this section prejudices any general provision of it.
(7)
In this section “prescribed” means prescribed by rules of court.
Cases considering section 111 4
[2010] EWCA Crim 2253 · 4 August 2010
The court upheld the admission of previous convictions as evidence demonstrating a propensity to commit offences of the kind charged. The evidence was not being used merely to bolster a weak case. (see paras [8]; [12]; [14])
The court accepted that the statutory fairness question governed whether the propensity evidence ought to be admitted. It held that the trial judge’s decision could not be set aside and was fully justified. (see paras [8]; [14])
[2007] EWCA Crim 1237 · 23 May 2007Interprets
The provision authorises rules requiring a co-defendant to give notice before relying on another defendant’s bad character. The court treated that notice requirement as a safeguard against unfair ambush. (see paras [54]-[56])
The provision gives the court power to dispense with procedural requirements imposed by bad-character rules. The court held that the rules, taken with the overriding objective, also permit refusal of evidence after a deliberate and unfair breach. (see paras [54]-[60])
The court noted that this provision expressly permits procedural default to be considered on costs. Its limited sanction contrasted with the hearsay provision. (see paras [54]-[55])
The provision preserves the general rule-making power. The court relied on it in holding that the criminal procedure rules could provide an effective sanction for deliberate breach of bad-character notice requirements. (see paras [57]-[60])
[2009] EWHC 3540 (Admin) · 9 December 2009
Confirms that rules of court made under section 111 provide the procedural framework for adducing bad-character evidence and requiring advance applications (see para [7]).
Applies the notice requirement to the conclusion that the prosecution should have initiated the process for adducing a non-defendant’s bad-character evidence, rather than the judge eliciting it without notice (see paras [7]-[8]; [24]).
What each judgment says about section 111 is in the case-law panel in the full Act.
391.Section 111 makes provision for rules of court to be drawn up to require the prosecution and a co-defendant to give notice of their intention to adduce evidence of a defendant's bad character (or elicit such evidence from a witness). In relation to prosecution evidence, such rules must be made. Such rules may also include provision for the defendant to waive any notice requirement. (section 111(3)). The court is empowered to take a failure to give the required notice into account in considering the exercise of its powers in respect of costs (section 111 (4)).