R v Tirnaveanu [2007] EWCA Crim 1239, [2007] All ER (D) 413 (May)
(i) the exclusion of misconduct from the bad character provisions of the 2003 Act on the ground that the evidence was ‘to do’ with the facts of the alleged offence (under s 98) must be related to evidence where there is some nexus in time between the offence with which the defendant is charged and the evidence of misconduct which the prosecution seek to adduce;
(ii) there is a potential overlap between evidence that has to do with the alleged facts of the offence and evidence that might be admitted through one of the gateways in s 101(1). However, in practice nothing of any legal significance depends on which of these two routes it is by which the evidence comes in;
(iii) despite the difference in wording between s 101(3) of the CJA 2003 and s 78(1) of PACE, there is no difference between the two and the guidance should be the same;
(iv) when a court is dealing with the evidence admitted under the bad character provisions, a direction (where appropriate) in simple and clear terms
