Page 414 - Magistrates Conference 2019

Page 6

his direction to the particular circumstances. He would probably wish to indicate, as is commonly done, that good
character cannot amount to a defence. In cases such as that of the long serving employee exemplified above, he may
wish to emphasise the "second limb" direction more than in the average case. By contrast, he may wish in a case such as
the murder/manslaughter example given above, to stress the very limited help the jury may feel they can get from the
absence of any propensity to violence in the defendant's history. Provided that the judge indicates to the jury the two
respects in which good character may be relevant, i.e. credibility and propensity, this court will be slow to criticise any
qualifying remarks he may make based on the facts of the individual case."

(d) Post Vye

14. The suggestion in Vye that a defendant with no previous convictions may not always demand a full character
direction was adopted in Zoppola-Barrazza [1994] Crim.L.R. 833. The defendant who had no previous convictions was
charged with importing cocaine. He admitted having been involved in smuggling gold to avoid duty and Value Added
Tax and said that he had not known that the importation charged involved cocaine. The judge gave only a propensity
direction. Noting that the appellant was fortunate to have received any part of a good character direction, the court held
it would be an 'affront to common sense' to give him the benefit of a direction intended for those 'truly considered to be
of good character'.

15. It might have been thought, therefore that the principles were relatively straightforward. The general rule was that
a defendant with no previous convictions should receive the benefit of a full good character direction. However, there
were exceptions to the general rule. A defendant who could not be described as of good character should not benefit
from the good character directions simply on the basis that he has no previous convictions.

16. The court in R v. Teasdale [1994] 99 Cr App R 80, decided on 9 July 1993, and before Zoppola-Barrazza, took a
rather different approach. The 17 year old Teasdale was of previous good character. She admitted one count of actual
bodily harm and faced a further count of causing grievous bodily harm with intent, arising from the same incident. The
judge made no reference to her previous good character because of her plea. This court, purportedly relying on the
judgment in Vye, held that the full direction should have been given. No mention was made of Richens which had been
cited in Vye with approval.

17. This decision was followed swiftly by R v Challenger [1994] Crim L R 202 in which the defendant was also of
previous good character. He was charged with possession of cannabis with intent to supply, simple possession, and
possession of an offensive weapon. He pleaded guilty to simple possession and was tried and convicted on the other two
counts. The judge declined to give a good character direction because of the plea and his decision was upheld. Teasdale
was distinguished. Both decisions have been the subject of criticism in subsequent years. As will become apparent, we
are persuaded that the decision in Challenger is far more in keeping with the principles expressed in Vye and is to be
preferred.

18. R v H [1994] Crim LR 205 is an early example of the consequences of the judge deciding to treat a defendant as
someone of effective good character. H had a previous conviction in 1980 for possession of an offensive weapon, for
which he was given community service. He was accused of indecent assault on his step-daughter. Despite accepting that
the previous conviction was irrelevant, the judge did not give the good character direction. The appeal was allowed.
This court, again presided over by Lord Taylor CJ reaffirmed that where a defendant's previous character was not
"absolute", it is a matter of discretion whether a good character direction should be given. However, where the judge
decides to treat the defendant as a man of effective good character, he should give a full Vye direction. This decision too
has been subject to adverse criticism by Professor Di Birch, Dr Roderick Munday and others on the basis that it places