BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> McNeill, R. v [2007] EWCA Crim 2927 (06 November 2007) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2007/2927.html Cite as: [2007] EWCA Crim 2927 |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Strand London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
MR JUSTICE HENRIQUES
MRS JUSTICE SWIFT DBE
____________________
R E G I N A | ||
v | ||
TRACEY MCNEILL |
____________________
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Mr K Volz appeared on behalf of the Crown
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
"References in this Chapter to evidence of a person's 'bad character' are to evidence of, or of a disposition towards, misconduct on his part, other than evidence which—
(a) has to do with the alleged facts of the offence with which the defendant is charged, or
(b) is evidence of misconduct in connection with the investigation or prosecution of that offence."
We should also refer briefly to section 112(1) of the 2003 Act, which provides that "bad character is to be read in accordance with section 98."
"Again the Crown relies upon this as evidential support to threats having been made and as to what was said on the evening of 28th to Mr Clements. Again ladies and gentlemen, of course it is entirely a matter for you, whether or not you consider that her evidence does in any way support the Crown's case, either in relation as to whether threats uttered or in relation to whether or not the defendant intended that Mr Clements would fear that the threats would be carried out."
We think that was an entirely appropriate direction, and by itself indicates just how this material directly related to the offence charged and was properly probative of it, if the jury so considered. The jury, of course, had also Miss McNeill's version of her conversation with Miss Cooper, namely: "What do you want me to fucking do? Do you want me to burn it down? Do you want them to come out in body bags?", which although put in the form of an interrogative, does not seem to us to have been materially different from what Miss Cooper said the appellant had said to her on that occasion. We therefore accept that the judge was right to regard this material as evidence within the exception of section 98(a), and therefore not as being bad character within the bad character provisions of the 2003 Act, and we go on to consider whether nevertheless the judge should have excluded this evidence under section 78.