Trying to understand Bad Character Evidence and how it gets introduced into a court case is quiet mind boggling...
In the case of Dr Vincent Tabak, there was No introduction of Bad Character Evidence, which would support any claims that the prosecution maintained about the defendant.
I keep scrutinising the CPS pages to see if I comprehend what happened and as to WHY they never introduced such evidence..
It's the old QUESTION about the PORN.... I have tried to determine when it was first argued in court and I can never quiet work it out...
It was never in the 1300 page Document, I am convinced of that... It''s knowing when the 1300 hundred page document was constructed,..NOW that would help..
The Definition of Bad Character:
]Definitions
"Bad character" in criminal proceedings means "evidence of or a disposition towards misconduct" (section 99 Criminal Justice Act 2003). Misconduct means the commission of an offence or other 'reprehensible conduct' (section 112 Criminal Justice Act 2003.) This definition applies to both defendants and non-defendants.
Dr Vincent Tabak had never committed any offence not so much as a parking ticket, so the part of the commission of an Offence doesn't apply...
The misconduct could be seen the unproven and unused evidence of Dr Vincent Tabak's sexual preferences and use of prostitutes and services...
But when read again it isn't that... Is the watching of porn or the use of prostitutes in LAW reprehensible conduct???? (IMO) I don't believe so!
For the prostitutes to be introduced into evidence, I am under the impression that Dr Vincent Tabak would have had to of had a conviction for the use of such services and he hasn't.... If I am incorrect on this, please someone correct me..
Because if they had the prostitutes on the stand as a witness to Dr Vincent Tabak's sexual preferences, you would then bring to the table the prostitutes Bad Character...
Reprehensible conduct" should be looked at objectively taking account of whether the public would regard such conduct as reprehensible such as racism, bullying, a bad disciplinary record at work for misconduct; a parent who has had a child taken into care and of course minor pilfering from employers. Conduct that should not be regarded as reprehensible could include consensual sexual activity between adults of the same sex. The term 'reprehensible conduct' will avoid arguments about whether or not conduct alleged against a person amounted to an offence where this has not resulted in a charge or conviction.
So within this statement the answer lies:
Conduct that should not be regarded as reprehensible could include consensual sexual activity between adults of the same sex.
And that would then also apply to consenting adults were payment has taken place (IMO) I cannot see unless a person has a conviction for such activities as it being classed as reprehensible.
So what excludes Bad Character Evidence ????
Exclusions
Evidence of bad character expressly excludes:
evidence which has to do with the alleged facts of the offence with which the defendant is charged (section 98(a) Criminal Justice Act 2003); and
evidence of misconduct in connection with the investigation or prosecution of that offence (section 98(b) Criminal Justice Act 2003). Evidence of misconduct in connection with the investigation or prosecution of the charge such as: evidence of resisting arrest by running away to imply an acknowledgement of guilt remains admissible outside the hearsay provisions.
Evidence which has to do with the alleged facts of the case????
As Joanna Yeates was not Sexually Assaulted I cannot comprehend how the accusation of Dr Vincent Tabak watching the Strangulation Porn would be relevant.. As it wasn't ever established that a SEXUAL ACT had taken place!!! So that becomes NONE EVIDENCE (IMO) The Porn is totally Irrelevant in this case, it NEVER was RELEVANT!!! (IMO)
It only came to pass after the conviction in which to BOLSTER a prosecution based on a Plea and where was the evidence to back the plea?????
Defendants: convictions and reprehensible conduct
The prosecution should always seek to prove bad character by asking the defence to make an admission under section 10 Criminal Justice Act 1967. A summary of the facts of the case should also be agreed.
What Bad character Evidence could Dr Vincent Tabak provide the Prosecution???? NONE (IMO), he was of good character and the CPS agreed.
There is a general issue in relation to the volume of material provided in support of bad character applications. It is inappropriate to serve evidence that is still subject to a determination by the court, by way of a notice of additional evidence. To do so may lead to the inappropriate service of material; only relevant material should accompany the application.
The early stages of the Introduction of Bad Character Evidence:
Charging
The police should forward to the prosecutor details of a defendant's bad character including previous convictions, such as the facts of the previous convictions, the nature of any defences used in the previous cases, and whether the defendant pleaded guilty or was found guilty. This should be provided at the earliest opportunity and preferably at the pre-charge stage.
There was never anything to support this, Dr Vincent Tabak hadn't committed any Offence prior NOT even a parking ticket!!
Prosecutors need to consider bad character evidence and the potential for admitting it at every review of the evidence. The MG3 should identify bad character evidence and any risks to admissibility, as part of the evidential stage of the Full Code Test in the Code for Crown Prosecutors. If the evidence taken as a whole (including bad character evidence) meets the tests set out in the Code then a prosecution will follow. Where the only evidence against a defendant is that of his bad character, the evidential test would not be satisfied and a prosecution must not take place.
So at the first review of the case the porn would have been introduced, also (IMO) the Child Porn! because that would show REPREHENSIBLE behaviour...So why wasn't it submitted early on in the proceedings??????
The Child Porn was never mentioned in the submissions as far as I am aware!!!
The submissions need to be looked at (IMO)
The Prosecution and the Defence must be well aware of what is relevant and do not need the judge to clarify the information to these High Profiled Professionals..
As the supposed Porn and Prostitutes are not seen as reprehensible behaviour and the watching of videos that were in the public domain, and were viewable on pay to watch TV on anyones TV set. I cannot see how this information was even brought to the judges attention, although he does refer to it...
Hopefully someone can clarify why not using the BAD CHARACTER EVIDENCE against Dr Vincent Tabak could affect the case... By not having it there I believe they WOULDN'T introduce the GOOD CHARACTER EVIDENCE...(IMO)
Question:?? Does a case need Bad Character Evidence??? If Bad Character Evidence isn't introduced does that make the case extremely weak???
I'm sure I'm missing something in a legal sense to do with this 'Bad Character Evidence' in relation to Dr Vincent Tabak, but I'm not quite sure what it is!!!!
So I can't help but wonder why the Judge says anything in regards to the Prostitutes or the Porn when neither of them represent reprehensible behaviour in law as far as I can tell....
Has the Judge overstepped the mark???
It's a genuine question, because he must know the Law, yet he says that the porn evidence is inadmissible because it would prejudice the jury... Yet how can something prejudice a jury when it's NOT admissible in the first place because it doesn't show BAD CHARACTER!!!(IMO)??????http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/bad_character_evidence/#exclusion14