Hunter & Ors v R.

Hunter & Ors v R.

Only defendants with good character or deemed effective good character are entitled to a good character direction. Where a defendant has previous convictions or admits reprehensible conduct, the judge has discretion whether to give any part of the direction and if so on what terms. The discretion is broad and context-specific. Failure to give a direction or misdirection is not automatically fatal to the conviction; safety must be assessed on the facts. The law has moved on with the Criminal Justice Act 2003, and judges must not give absurd or misleading directions.

Parties
Appellant: Nigel Hunter; Appellant: Joseph Saruwu; Appellant: Ian Johnstone; Appellant: Alan Walker; Appellant: Paul Lonsdale; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 April 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
all appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Good Character Directions, Credibility, Propensity, Bad Character Evidence, Criminal Justice Act 2003, Jury Directions
Criminal Law Good Character Directions Credibility Propensity Bad Character Evidence Criminal Justice Act 2003 Jury Directions

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 5 Authorities cited 56 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nigel Hunter

Appellant

Joseph Saruwu

Appellant

Ian Johnstone

Appellant

Alan Walker

Appellant

Paul Lonsdale

Appellant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Extent and nature of good character direction in criminal trials
  2. 2 Entitlement to good character direction for defendants with previous convictions or reprehensible conduct
  3. 3 Impact of Criminal Justice Act 2003 on character directions

Ratio Decidendi

Only defendants with good character or deemed effective good character are entitled to a good character direction. Where a defendant has previous convictions or admits reprehensible conduct, the judge has discretion whether to give any part of the direction and if so on what terms. The discretion is broad and context-specific. Failure to give a direction or misdirection is not automatically fatal to the conviction; safety must be assessed on the facts. The law has moved on with the Criminal Justice Act 2003, and judges must not give absurd or misleading directions.

Court Disposition

all appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Walker’s appeal against conviction dismissed.
  • Johnstone’s appeal against conviction dismissed.