The courts decisions over the last twenty-five years or so reveal a Essay

The courts decisions over the last twenty-five years or so reveal a remarkably confusing approach to the purpose of cross-examination under s.1(f)(ii) Criminal - Essay Example(ii) he has personally or by his recommend asked questions of the witnesses for the prosecution with a view to establish his own good character, or has given demonstrate of his good character, or the nature or conduct of the defense reaction is such as to involve imputations on the character of the prosecutor or the witnesses for the prosecution or the deceased victim of the alleged crimeThe intention of the execution was to ban the prosecution from cross examining a defendant on previous convictions, previous crimes they had committed and any evidence of bad character. The insertion of s1(f) (ii) removed the justifiedly not to be cross examined if the accused has attempted through his defence counsel to attack the character of the witness in order to diminish their evidence against him. This form of attack was frequently employed in rape cases where the defence would often resort to questioning the victim regarding their previous sexual experiences. According to Bohner et al (1998) part of the reason why rape is so infrequently reported is due to the stereotypic beliefs about rape that blame the victim and exonerate the raper.It was always intended that the judge would have the discretionary power to refuse to allow the defendant to be cross examined on their previous convictions, but in reality this has very rarely happened1.Up until the recent introduction of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 bad character evidence of an accused was admissible further if the evidence could be regarded as similar fact evidence. This meant that the prosecution had to show that the defendant had committed similar crimes, using a similar method, in the one-time(prenominal) in order for these to be adduced in court. The impact of the 2003 Act has extended the similar fact requirement such that a propensi ty towards a particular(a) offence can be adduced to demonstrate the guilt of the accused.