S 179 character is person’s general disposition made up of aggregate of traits including honesty, peacefulness, skill or care, temperance and their opposite, per Makin v AG of New South Wales mere fact of evidence showing commission of other crimes doesn’t render same inadmissible if relevant to issue as to show whether act was designed or accidental or rebut defence, evidence of receipt of infants from mothers and buried in similar manner in white gardens is admissible, 3 questions judge asks, to what issue is the bad character relevant? Is evidence sufficiently probative? Will its admissibility result in unfair or prejudice?
Melfa v Rep aggressive character of victim admissible in reducing harsh sentence.
S 53 evidence of a person’s character not admissible to prove conduct in conformity with that character on a specific occasion except in a criminal action by the accused to prove the innocence or by the prosecution to rebut or evidence of the character of the victim of the alleged crime by the accused to prove the conduct of the victim or by the prosecution for the same purpose or character of a witness or hearsay declarant when offered to support or attack the credibility or where character is an essential element of a charge, claim or defence.
Admission of specific conduct to prove essential element in claim or charge may be dealt under 4 elements, identity, knowledge, negligence and intentS 54 such methods of proving may be by opinion, not in form of specific instances of the person’s conduct SIPC, except if essential element of a charge, claim or defence, however SIPC may be admissible in crime or civil to show motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity or absence of mistake or accident. S 55 an otherwise admissible evidence of routine practice of person or organization admissible to prove conduct on specified occasion by opinion or occasions sufficient in number to support finding.
Good Character: where accused calls in evidence of his good character it is admissible to prove that it’s impossible for person as such to behave as alleged perAG v Radloff , the effect is that his whole character is in issue and prosecution is entitled thereafter only to call in evidence of bad character to rebut same, per R v Butterwasser prosecution may do so only where he puts accused put issue of good character from witness box, same isn’t applicable where accused only attacked character of prosecution witnesses since he doesn’t put his character in issue, per Avegavi v Rep prosecution’s argument of bad character must be in absence of jury or assessors otherwise an error.
Similar fact evidence is admissible to establish character evidence; 1-where previous acts reveal propensity to commit act in specific manner 2-the bad character evidence supports evidence of identity 3-evidence would rebut defence of innocent association 4-evidence would rebut defence of accident.
‘Striking similarity’ only test for necessary probative weight unless SFE may not be striking or have probative weight per Boardman v DPP similar fact is exception and requires strong degree of probative force, such that from all circumstances each testimony bears striking similarity, nexus, pattern or system that by experience and common sense, each must have arisen from common cause or pure coincidence, per R v Scarrot positive probative value which outweighs its prejudicial effect is what the law requires, not merely repetition of similar facts but features which provides link especially to show how the offence was committed, striking similarity may be misleading as a label.R v Lunt the judge may however by discretion exclude same striking similar evidence sought to be introduced.
Criminal-Thompson v R indecency with boys severally admissible as he arranged to meet them again in 3 days later near public toilet, R v Straffen previously charged with two murders evidence of previous murders admissible to prove identity of child’s killer, R v Francesevidence of previous attempts to obtain loans on spurious jewellery admitted to prove accused knew stones in ring for loan was worthless, R v Mason proof of possession of other forged doc admitted to show his awareness of doc in possession forged, R v Mortimer previous knocking down of women cyclist in similar manner admissible to prove murder, R v Smith evidence of occurrence of previous wives’ death in bath drowning admissible for murder upon similar fact of mutual will making with each wife and benefitting him only after their death, if an accident benefits a person and person sufficiently fortunate to have accident happen to him in number of times, each time benefitting, you draw a very strong and irresistible inference that accident and coincidental benefits was designed by said person;
Civil-Hales v Kerr other persons contracting ringworm from shave admissible against barber in allowing P to shave with unclean razor, Joy v Philips evidence of stable boy being warned about not having anything to do with halter and stable admissible to prove defence that death of boy didn’t occur in course of his employment as at death had halter in hand in stable from kick of horse, per Mood Music Publishing v De Wolfe Publishing evidence of previous reproduction of copyrighted works admitted to rebut defence of coincidence against preproduction of Ps copyright work.
S 82 extrinsic evidence affecting credibility other than the testimony of witness is admissible if relevant to prove truthfulness or not S 83 character traits affecting credibility isn’t admissible unless evidence impugns good character attacking credibility, unless accused first introduce evidence of good character to support credibility, prosecution cannot attack credibility by evidence of previous conviction to impugn good character, evidence of reputation of witness isn’t admissible per Scott v Sampson P described as exploiter in action for libel as journalist specific acts of misconduct and rumours against Ps reputations isn’t admissible
S 84 specific instances of conduct affecting credibility tending to prove character isn’t admissible to attack or support credibility, but same for purpose of prove of credibility be inquired into on cross-examination of witness or one who testifies to character of said witness S 85 previous conviction evidence affecting credibility that witness has been convicted of dishonesty crime or false statement may be led despite pending appeal, pendency of appeal must be led with the evidence itself, but shall not lead evidence as to conviction for any other crime, or if period of conviction more than ten years has elapsed since date of conviction.