To answer this question properly requires at least an outline knowledge of the earlier law. The concept behind the question is that a defendant cannot only refer to parts of their character which might be favourable to them and expect that other less favourable parts will be ignored. Your introduction should set out the definition of character in legal terms and compare that with some of the evidence from psychological science. You should make the point that only ‘bad character’ is defined in the statute (s101) and that good character is defined by the common law still. The question is really about whether, if the defendant claims to be of good character, his ‘bad character’ will also be admitted. Refer to the particular problems of character evidence identified by the Law Commission, namely moral and reasoning prejudice and the difficulties since the 1898 statute of achieving a fair balance between the interests of the defendant and the public interests in prosecuting crime successfully. This is an area where relevance may have to give way to other considerations. Refer to Lloyd-Bostock (2006) and the empirical support her research gives to the possibility of prejudice in a jury. The approach of the courts has been, even before the defendant was allowed to testify, that the jury on the other hand must not be misled and that a defendant could not claim to be of good character without having his bad character admitted. A possible outline for your essay is:
TO GET THIS OR ANY OTHER ASSIGNMENT DONE FOR YOU FROM SCRATCH, PLACE A NEW ORDER HERE
