Page 457 - Magistrates Conference 2019

R V MCLEOD AND ANOR. – RELEVANT TO CREDIBILITY ONLY

R v McLeod and Another [1994] 3 All ER 254

 The appellant was apprehended shortly after taking part in an armed robbery. He admitted
being one of the robbers but would give not details. At his trial, he claimed that he had had

nothing to do with the robbery and that the police had fabricated his admission.

 Since his defence involved a wholesale attack on the police, his counsel, anticipating that
he would be cross-examined on his previous convictions, asked him briefly about them in
examination in chief. The appellant accepted that he had been found guilty of a number of

offences, but claimed that he was not in fact guilty.

 Prosecuting counsel obtained leave to cross-examine the appellant on his previous
convictions.

 The appellant was convicted. He appealed, contending that the questions asked by the
prosecution were unduly prejudicial in that they had revealed (i) facts in the offences for

which he had previously been convicted which were similar to some of those in the instant
case, (ii) other facts which, although not similar to those in the instant case, disclosed

exceptionally vicious behaviour, and (iii) that a similar defence had been advanced but
rejected on a previous occasion, and that the judge had directed the jury inadequately with
respect to those matters.

10