OPENING NOTE:

"The business of the court is to try the case and not the man; and a very bad man may have a very righteous cause." (Wigmore)

Bad character evidence has ‘too much’ appreciable probative value in criminal cases, while it has none in civil cases, since no moral quality is associated with the acts in question. In civil proceedings, evidence of character is generally irrelevant, except in certain specific circumstances, whereas in criminal proceedings, evidence of good character is relevant, but the fact that the party is of bad character is typically not relevant, except in certain specified cases.

RELEVANT PROVISIONS:

Articles 66-69 of the Q.S.O 1984

MEANING OF CHARACTER:

Character refers to the combination of qualities, either inherent by nature or developed by habit, that distinguish a person from others.

BASIS OF THE RULE OF EXCLUSION:

The general exclusion of character evidence is based on public policy and fairness. Its admission could surprise and prejudice the parties by unnecessarily dragging the entirety of their past behavior into court, which they might not be prepared to defend.

SCOPE AND VALUE OF CHARACTER EVIDENCE:

In respect of the character of a party, two distinctions must be made:

1. Whether the character is in issue or not.

2. Whether the cause is civil or criminal.

In civil cases, the character of parties is generally irrelevant, except where it affects damages. In criminal cases, character evidence is relevant except in certain cases specified by Articles 67 and 69 of the Q.S.O 1984.

RELEVANCE OF CHARACTER:

In Queen v. Rewton (1865), it was noted that “To admit evidence in every case, or to reject it in every case, would be equally fatal to justice.”

1. IN CIVIL CASES (ARTICLE 66):

General Rule:
The general rule is that the character of a party to a civil suit is irrelevant. However, there are certain exceptions where the character of the person becomes relevant.

Exceptions:

1. When the character appears from facts otherwise relevant.

2. When the character is itself in issue.

3. When character evidence affects the amount of damages.
   Article 69 specifies that in civil cases, the character of a person can be relevant if it affects the amount of damages they ought to receive.

2. IN CRIMINAL CASES:

In criminal proceedings, a person's character can play a critical role in explaining their conduct and determining the improbability or probability of the alleged actions. Understanding the character of the accused may help in assessing the plausibility of the conduct imputed to them and determining their innocence or guilt.

I. EVIDENCE OF GOOD CHARACTER (ARTICLE 67):

In criminal proceedings, the fact that the accused has a good character is relevant.
The principle behind admitting good character evidence is that it provides a presumption against the commission of a crime. A person who has maintained good character throughout their life is less likely to commit a crime, although it is acknowledged that even individuals with good character can be tempted into wrongdoing.

However, character evidence is not conclusive and cannot outweigh strong evidence regarding the guilt of the person. If the accused raises evidence of good character, the prosecution may challenge it.

II. EVIDENCE OF BAD CHARACTER (ARTICLE 68):

Reasons for Exclusion of Evidence of Bad Character:
Five primary reasons for the exclusion of bad character evidence are:

a) It carries little probative value.
b) It distracts from the merits of the case.
c) It can prejudice the accused.
d) It undermines individual autonomy and rights.
e) The exclusion is a legacy of historical legal practices.

General Rule:
In criminal cases, the fact that the accused has a bad character is generally irrelevant. However, there are exceptions to this rule, where evidence of bad character may be admissible.

Exceptions:

1. When a fact is otherwise relevant:
   Evidence of bad character can be admitted if it is relevant to another issue in the case, even if it incidentally reveals the character of the accused. For example, evidence to establish the state of mind or motive behind an offense may be admissible, even if it reflects poorly on the accused's character.

2. When the character of the accused is itself in issue (Article 68, Explanation 1):
   Evidence of bad character is admissible when the character of the accused is directly in issue. The character evidence must be relevant to the specific traits that are related to the charge. For example, evidence of dishonesty is irrelevant in a charge of cruelty but may be relevant in a charge of theft.

3. When a previous conviction is relevant as evidence of bad character (Article 68, Explanation 2):
   The prosecution may introduce a previous conviction as evidence of bad character if it is relevant to the case. However, if the accused has been convicted previously and is liable to enhanced punishment or has presented evidence of good character, such evidence of past conviction may be admissible.

4. When evidence of bad character can be given by the prosecution, but only as a reply to evidence of good character:
   If the accused has introduced evidence of good character, the prosecution may introduce evidence of bad character in response.

CONCLUSION:

Character evidence plays a limited but significant role in both civil and criminal proceedings. In civil cases, the character of the parties is generally irrelevant, except when it directly affects the issue at hand, such as damages. In criminal cases, evidence of good character can work in favor of the accused by providing a presumption against criminal behavior. On the other hand, evidence of bad character is usually excluded due to its prejudicial effect but can be admitted under certain exceptions, such as when it directly relates to the issue in dispute or when it is necessary to counter evidence of good character presented by the accused. Ultimately, the court must carefully balance the probative value of character evidence against its potential to prejudice the parties and ensure fairness in the trial process.