header-logo header-logo

01 May 2008
Issue: 7319 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Criminal evidence

R v McKenzie [2008] EWCA Crim 758, [2008] All ER (D) 157 (Apr)

The defendant was charged with causing death by dangerous driving. The prosecution had called evidence about his alleged bad driving on previous occasions.

HELD Many judges would have taken the view that they would not admit such evidence because of the risk of the trial and the summing up becoming unduly complicated by collateral issues.

However, it cannot be said to have been wrong in principle or perverse to conclude that the evidence could be regarded as tending to show that the appellant had a propensity to drive in an aggressive and impatient manner which involved taking dangerous risks (to fall within s 103 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003) and that the evidence was relevant to an important matter in issue between the parties to be admissible under s 101(1)(d).

The Court of Appeal will not interfere with a ruling as to admissibility of evidence of a defendant’s bad character unless the judge’s judgment as to the capacity of prior events to establish propensity is plainly wrong, or discretion to exclude under s 101(3) has been exercised unreasonably in the Wednesbury sense. However, “there is much to be said for trial judges doing all in their power to ensure that cases are tightly focused on the essential issues” (Lord Justice Toulson at para 28).

Issue: 7319 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll