Topic 2: Character Evidence General rule: Character evidence of a party to an action CHARACTER EVIDENCE IN CIVIL PROCEEDING In the Evidence Act, the term of character involves both reputation (what others think about a person) and disposition (inner qualities of a person). Relevant cases; Rv Rowton Bhagwan Swarup v State of Maharasta Singh v State of Punjab Exceptions: [ (a) character cannot be proved whenever it affects the: damages, he ought to recei section 2 Cases: Amountofdamages _Sandison v Malayan awardedbasedon ‘Times Ltd & Ors. character ofaperson. pp Vijandrav Karpal Evidence mayonlybe Sindh Ors given of general Plato Films Ltd v reputation and Speidel disposition. ‘Two aspects shall be taken into consideration; ()eredibiity ofthe Sih Ooi Choe v PP accused as witness (if ‘accused testified: court) (2) the propensity of accused committing tthe crime Melayani v PP inal are not relevant GR: Character evidence of a party is not relevant unless it is a fact inissue and only GR: Good character of the accused is relevant in criminal proceeding Good character Character evidence is are generally _important in explaining subjective ; conduct and innocence of Examples RvFerguson RvBaker RvCoulman the accused; Habech Muhammad ¥ State of Hyderabad Syed Ismail v PP Section 54(2) OR: The fact that the accused has bad characteris irrelevant in criminal proceeding However ifthe accused gives evidence to prove his good oer aracter, then his bad Wong Foh Hin v PP ‘haracter becomes relevant. Loke Soo Har v PP Evidence of bad character Kiew Foo Mui & may be given by way of dependent et deea Orsy PPn 54(2) Four types of questions which shall not be asked or the accused is not required to Cases; Jones vDPP Stirland v DPP Maxwell v DPP 1st limb: Ascertain good characters - Allow the prosecution to asked question to accused du examination on accused's bad accused attempts to establish his good character - 2ways good character maybe established: 19 cross- character it 4. Accused or his counsel at the prosecution stage, through an f asks n’s witness. to establish for the purpose to establish accused's good character 2. Accused himself or through his ness gives evidence of his good character at the defence stage Case; Maxwell v DPP ‘Section 54(2)(a) The evidence to prove conduct of the accused is admissible evidence example similar Fact Evidence, adiissionof SFE under this Eeedaveet smear reqirementounderSection | |_2 2nd limb: Casting imputations against the character of the prosecutor or the prosecution's witness - Evidence of bad character of accused is relevant if he or by his advocate casts imputations on the character of the prosecutor or the nesses for the prosecution. - “Character” may refer to general and specific instances. Guidelines in the ease of R v Bitzman & RvHall (a) Denial of truth does not amount to casting imputation on the character of the prosecution or prosecution's witness. Cases, R v Rouse and Burrel &R v Rappott () Whether the imputat are necessary to the defence. + Ifyes, cross examination on bad character should not be allowed ns involved * Ifno, cross-examination on bad character should be allowed (c) There is no need for the prosecution to rely ons. 54(2)(b) if evidence against the accused is overwhel Means, there are many other positi evidences that can proof the guilt of the accused.Allow the prosecution to ask question to accused during cross- examination on accused's bad character, previous charges, commissions or convictions of offence if accused has given evidence against co-accused - Pre-requisite to apply para (c): the accused must be jointly charged with the same offence as the other co- accused. - “Same offence’ erally if accused is jointly tried with the co-accused for different offences but in the same proceedings , para (c) cannot be invoked (Rv Lovett). - §.146 (c): Allows a witness to be cross examine and be asked questions which tent to shake his credit by injuring his character, although the answer to such questions might tend to criminate, exposed him directly or indirectly to a penalty or forfeiture. - §.146(c) must cross refer with PROVISO under Section 120(3) : Where court can limit cross examinations relating to the credit of the accused. Case: Lim Baba v PP