Can The Prosecution Call A Character Witness For The Defence?

[Tommy_Thumby]

If so, how likely?

Also, how are character statements used in Magistrates?

Thank you!

[woofgang]

do you mean can the prosecution question a witness called by the defence or what?

[Old_Geezer]

Why would they wish to help the defence ? And even if they did couldn't the defence call the individual for themselves ?

Did you mean they should call a character witness for the prosecution ?

[Tommy_Thumby]

I mean if someone provides a character witness statement for the defence, are they liable to be cross-examined by the prosecution?

[woofgang]

aren't all witnesses liable to be cross examined? i mean a character witness shows up and says Oh yes I know this bloke he wouldn't hurt a fly then the prosecution asked how the witness met the accused and it turns out they were in the same cell after a ruck in a pub!

[FredPuli43]

There is no property in a witness; nobody has exclusive rights to call a witness. But the defence would call a character witness whose evidence is exclusively for the defence; the evidence is no part of the prosecution's case, so they wouldn't.

Character evidence should be in the form of a statutory witness statement and read out or be given by live evidence. In practice, magistrates' courts will accept character references in the form of letters, as will the Crown Court if the reference is of any value; a letter from the Archbishop of Canterbury saying how good the defendant is, is not expected to be in an affidavit or statutory statement !

[Tommy_Thumby]

That's a great answer again Fred. Thank you.

[woofgang]

fred, could the prosecution not call a character witness to give evidence that the accused is a vicious and nasty piece of work or is that not allowed?

[dannyk13]

The Prosecution could call a character witness to rebut the evidence of a defence character witness.

[FredPuli43]

Being of bad character is not generally probative of guilt of a specific offence, woofgang, and so evidence of it is not admitted. That the accused has previous for like offences might be probative, obviously so in 'mark of Zorro' cases where the present offence has unusual characteristics which the previous ones shared but also if he claimed to be of good character or had attacked the character of a prosecution witness; in those two cases his character is brought in to help the jury to decide who should be believed

Yes, it would be open to the prosecution to call witnesses to rebut a defence character witness but it would only happen when that witness made false assertions of fact e.g. they asserted that the man had an impeccable army record when , in fact, his army service was blighted by constant disobedience and bad behaviour and he was discharged for it. Otherwise character assessment is personal to the individual., it is opinion, and not subject to rebuttal.

[woofgang]

thank you Fred. Its interesting isn't it that being of previously good character, can have value in court but being of previously bad character doesn't!

[FredPuli43]

Curiously, woofgang, bad character can be an advantage. When you know that it might go in anyway, you put it in yourself at the first opportunity. This surprises the jury but it reduces the impact of it emerging from the prosecution. And then you run the "Round up the usual suspects" defence. Of course, the police nicked your bloke. It is so much easier than doing a proper job, isn't it ? Poor souls, they have a difficult job, overworked, under pressure but.....

[woofgang]

Hmmm.....

[FredPuli43]

Hmm..but you can't run that when your man is of impeccable character ! If he gets stitched up by police efforts , you have a job explaining why. It's more likely that he's been stitched up by employers or work colleagues, so it shouldn't happen much, but it's hard if it does.

[woofgang]

The hmmm was because my father in law was involved (as a victim) in a robbery of the private club where he was the bar steward. He was in his late sixties at that point had never been in trouble in his life and is a small lightly built bloke. The burglars roughed him up, threatened him and duct taped him to a chair. When the police got there, they took him home in a police car and managed to "find" unrelated stolen chequebooks on the back seat of the car where he was sitting, which they suggested had fallen out of his pocket......I guess they were behind in their clear up stats for the month.

[Hypognosis]

It's a strange paradox (or double standard, if you prefer) that we're not allowed to 'convict in this instance, based on past criminal behaviour' but we are permitted to acquit, on the basis of 'previously of good character'.

On the other hand, at the outset of the justice system, the character witnesses were the twelve who were sat on the jury...

Perhaps it all harks back to that arrangement?

Of academic interest only: in what era did the rules begin to change, to allow people who didn't know a defendent from sitting on the jury?