EVIDENCE OF CHARACTER AND DISPOSITION
Objectives
By the end of this unit, you should be able to:
1. Explain the general rule evidence of character;
2. Discuss the circumstances when evidence of character or disposition
may be admitted in criminal matters;
3. Explain the factors that assist the court in deciding to exclude evidence
of character or disposition.
Introduction to Evidence of Character and Disposition
Evidence of character and disposition refers to information that indicates an
individual’s tendency to act, think, or feel in certain ways. This type of evidence can
help establish a person's general character, which may be relevant in various legal
contexts, including both civil and criminal proceedings.
Character evidence is often derived from past actions or conduct, such as previous
convictions or discreditable behavior, and can be presented through testimonies
from acquaintances or through general evidence of a person's disposition. While
such evidence can provide insights into an individual's behavior and intentions, its
admissibility is often contested due to the potential for prejudice. Courts are cautious
about allowing character evidence because it may lead jurors or judges to focus on a
person's character rather than the facts pertinent to the case, potentially resulting in
unfair bias against the accused.
In civil cases, character evidence may be admissible when it is directly relevant to the
issues at hand, such as in defamation or matrimonial disputes. However, the
presumption of good character complicates the introduction of negative evidence,
1|Page
necessitating a careful judicial assessment of its probative value versus its prejudicial
effect.
In criminal cases, the general rule is that evidence of a defendant's bad character is
inadmissible, with exceptions allowing for its consideration under specific
circumstances. These exceptions include cases where the defense has presented
evidence of good character or when the defendant has challenged the credibility of a
prosecution witness.
Overall, the evaluation of character and disposition evidence involves balancing its
relevance and probative value against the risk of unfair prejudice, ensuring that
trials remain fair and just.
Evidence of Character
Evidence of character refers to information that demonstrates a person's tendency to
behave, think, or feel in a specific manner. This type of evidence reflects an
individual's disposition and may be revealed through past conduct, including the
commission of other crimes or discreditable actions. Character can be established
through general evidence of disposition or testimonies from individuals familiar
with the person in question.
While evidence of character can be relevant for drawing inferences about facts at
issue, it can also lead to prejudice against the accused, as it might unduly influence
the judge by focusing on collateral issues rather than the core facts of the case. Due
to the potential for prejudice, evidence of character is generally inadmissible unless
the court has weighed its prejudicial impact against its probative value.
2|Page
Parties to Proceedings
In civil cases, evidence of character is typically admissible when character is relevant
to the case. For instance, in defamation cases, character can be essential to justify a
defense of justification or fair comment. In matrimonial disputes, a party may need
to prove the general character of the other spouse if claiming unreasonable behavior.
However, the law presumes good character until proven otherwise, meaning
evidence of a party's good character does not usually need to be presented (Zambia
Publishing Company Ltd v Pius Kakungu (1982) Z.R. 167). Conversely, evidence of
bad character may be admitted to prove relevant facts in issue, with a focus on its
probative value over any prejudicial effect.
In criminal cases, evidence of the accused’s bad character is usually inadmissible,
with a few exceptions:
1. If the defense introduces evidence of good character, the prosecution may
cross-examine on that evidence.
2. If the accused attacks the character of a prosecution witness, the prosecution
may present evidence of the accused’s general disposition.
3. Similar fact evidence may also be admissible under specific circumstances.
Generally, character evidence is not admissible to prove or disprove other issues, as
this could prejudice the accused by suggesting a propensity for criminal behavior.
For instance, in Melody Chibuye v The People (1970) Z.R. 28 (H.C.), the court
emphasized that questions about an accused’s previous convictions could only be
admitted under certain conditions.
Witnesses
In cases involving witnesses, opposing parties may question a witness about their
general character or any past convictions to discredit their testimony. Such inquiries
3|Page
must be relevant to the witness’s credibility and should not aim solely to embarrass
the witness. Under Section 157(vi) of the Criminal Procedure Code, a witness cannot
be compelled to answer questions about other offenses unless those offenses are
relevant to the current charge or the witness’s character has been challenged.
Evidence of Similar Facts
Evidence of similar facts may be admitted to illustrate a person’s character or
propensity to behave in a certain way. In civil cases, this type of evidence can be
relevant and is often evaluated for its probative value against any potential
prejudicial effect. Courts may permit similar fact evidence when it logically supports
the facts at issue, provided it does not unfairly disadvantage the other side.
In criminal cases, the prosecution cannot typically introduce evidence of the
accused’s prior bad acts unless it serves a relevant purpose, such as establishing
motive or identity. Courts must balance the probative value of such evidence against
its prejudicial effect. The discretion lies with the judge to exclude evidence if it does
not substantially relate to the facts at issue.
In summary, the admission of character and similar fact evidence requires careful
consideration of its relevance and potential impact on the fairness of the trial. Each
case must be evaluated individually, focusing on the balance between probative
force and prejudicial effect.
Statutes
Section 157 Criminal Procedure Code, Cap 88 of the Laws of Zambia
Case Law
1. DPP v Boardman [1975] AC 421
2. Esther Mwiimbe v The People (1986) Z.R. 15 (S.C.)
4|Page
3. Makin v Attorney General for New South Wales [1894] A.C 232) Melody
Chibuye v The People (1970) Z.R. 28 (H.C.)
4. O’Brien v Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2005] 2 All ER 930
5. Zambia Publishing Company Ltd v Pius Kakungu (1982) Z.R. 167 Books
6. Tapper, Collin. Cross and Wilkins Outline
5|Page
