H, R. v

H, R. v

Section 100 is not limited to excluding propensity evidence of a non-defendant; both propensity and credibility may have substantial probative value and should be admitted if relevant to a matter in issue. The judge was wrong to exclude HH's previous robberies, and the exclusion rendered the conviction unsafe.

Parties
Appellant: H; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 December 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
conviction quashed, appeal allowed, retrial ordered
Legal Topics
Bad Character Evidence, Propensity, Credibility, Section 100 Criminal Justice Act 2003, Robbery
Criminal Law Bad Character Evidence Propensity Credibility Section 100 Criminal Justice Act 2003 Robbery

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

H

Appellant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper interpretation of section 100 Criminal Justice Act 2003 regarding admissibility of bad character evidence of a third party
  2. 2 Whether evidence of HH's previous robberies should have been admitted
  3. 3 Whether exclusion of HH's previous robberies rendered the conviction unsafe

Ratio Decidendi

Section 100 is not limited to excluding propensity evidence of a non-defendant; both propensity and credibility may have substantial probative value and should be admitted if relevant to a matter in issue. The judge was wrong to exclude HH's previous robberies, and the exclusion rendered the conviction unsafe.

Court Disposition

conviction quashed, appeal allowed, retrial ordered

Orders

  • conviction on second count quashed
  • fresh indictment to be preferred within 2 months