{"id":1551,"date":"2021-08-01T22:44:02","date_gmt":"2021-08-01T22:44:02","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/legalblog.ie\/?p=1551"},"modified":"2024-03-22T22:08:52","modified_gmt":"2024-03-22T22:08:52","slug":"character-and-similar-fact","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/character-and-similar-fact\/","title":{"rendered":"Character and Similar Fact"},"content":{"rendered":"<div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_63 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title \" >Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #999;color:#999\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #999;color:#999\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/character-and-similar-fact\/#Character\" title=\"Character\">Character<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/character-and-similar-fact\/#Witnesses\" title=\"Witnesses\">Witnesses<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/character-and-similar-fact\/#Accused\" title=\"Accused\">Accused<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/character-and-similar-fact\/#Exceptions\" title=\"Exceptions\">Exceptions<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/character-and-similar-fact\/#Puts_Character_in_Issue\" title=\"Puts Character in Issue\">Puts Character in Issue<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/character-and-similar-fact\/#2010_Act_Restatement\" title=\"2010 Act Restatement\">2010 Act Restatement<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/character-and-similar-fact\/#Similar_Fact_Evidence\" title=\"Similar Fact Evidence\">Similar Fact Evidence<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/character-and-similar-fact\/#Background_Evidence\" title=\"Background Evidence\">Background Evidence<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/character-and-similar-fact\/2\/#CRIMINAL_PROCEDURE_ACT_2010\" title=\"CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2010\">CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2010<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-4' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-4'><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-4' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-4'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/character-and-similar-fact\/2\/#Giving_of_Evidence\" title=\"Giving of Evidence\">Giving of Evidence<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-4'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-11\" href=\"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/character-and-similar-fact\/2\/#Amendment_of_Criminal_Justice_Evidence_Act_1924\" title=\"Amendment of Criminal Justice (Evidence) Act 1924.\">Amendment of Criminal Justice (Evidence) Act 1924.<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-4'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-12\" href=\"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/character-and-similar-fact\/2\/#Evidence_of_character\" title=\"Evidence of character.\">Evidence of character.<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-4'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-13\" href=\"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/character-and-similar-fact\/2\/#Expert_evidence_adduced_by_defence\" title=\"Expert evidence adduced by defence.\">Expert evidence adduced by defence.<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-4'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-14\" href=\"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/character-and-similar-fact\/2\/#Return_or_disposal_of_property_to_be_used_as_evidence\" title=\"Return or disposal of property to be used as evidence.\">Return or disposal of property to be used as evidence.<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Character\"><\/span>Character<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Character evidence in relation to the accused is generally inadmissible.\u00a0 It seeks to attack a person\u2019s credibility on the basis of his general reputation for truthfulness.<\/p>\n<p>The courts allow character evidence in some limited cases where its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effects.\u00a0 Good character may be offered by evidence of good reputation through personal opinion and examples of reliability and honesty.<\/p>\n<p>Character embraces credibility but is a broader concept.\u00a0 Character is generally a collateral issue with a consequent limitation on the extent to which it can be subject to further challenge.<\/p>\n<p>Its status as a rule of law rather than just a case by case matter of reasoning derives from the apprehension that juries might be unduly swayed by such evidence. Its probative value is assumed strongly to be outweighed by its prejudicial effects.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Witnesses\"><\/span>Witnesses<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Parties are generally entitled to attack the character of a witness subject to the trial Judge&#8217;s discretion to exclude vexatious and irrelevant questions. Where the witness\u2019s answers in relation to a collateral issue such as his character, the answers are deemed final and additional evidence may not be given to rebut them subject to be above, with very limited exceptions.<\/p>\n<p>Where a witness&#8217;s credibility has been attacked, by questions about character on cross-examination or through other evidence, the party calling the witness may re-establish credibility by giving evidence of good character. Evidence of good character may be by examination or given by witnesses.\u00a0 It may only be done if the witness&#8217;s character has been called into question.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Accused\"><\/span>Accused<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The law generally prohibits the prosecution from introducing evidence of the accused\u2019s bad character and other misconduct on the basis that its probative value is assumed to be outweighed by the prejudicial effect.\u00a0 The evidence is excluded as a matter of principle, it is not usually logical to imply a person acted in one way on one occasion on the basis of having acted similarly on another occasion.<\/p>\n<p>The accused may give evidence of his own good character.\u00a0 However, by so doing, he allows the prosecution to adduce evidence of his bad character or prior misconduct.\u00a0 Where the accused calls witness, another witness to give evidence of the accused\u2019s character.<\/p>\n<p>Where the defence calls a person to testify as to the accused&#8217;s good character, the witness must limit his evidence to his general reputation and standing in the community.\u00a0 He cannot give his opinion on issues of credibility.<\/p>\n<p>The principle that the accused&#8217;s previous bad character or prior misconduct is inadmissible is a basic aspect of the right to a fair trial protected by the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Exceptions\"><\/span>Exceptions<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>There are exceptions to the general principles that the accused&#8217;s past misconduct is inadmissible.\u00a0 In this context, misconduct covers previous criminal acts but also anti-social and other acts that might be condemned by society.<\/p>\n<p>There are a number of exceptions to the general principle against the admission of previous misconduct and offences.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>where there is a distinct pattern of crimes with a certain hallmark,<\/li>\n<li>multiple complaints of sexual abuse against the accused,<\/li>\n<li>where the prosecution is rebutting a defence of accident. For example, a claim of accident may be undermined where a number of similar events have been proved to occur.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Where the exceptions apply in the circumstances, the previous misconduct is in effect deemed to be specifically probative in relation to the current charge.\u00a0 It is not enough that it merely establishes a general disposition, for the exceptions to apply.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Puts_Character_in_Issue\"><\/span>Puts Character in Issue<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>However, there are statutory rules which allow evidence to be given of the accused\u2019s bad character where he puts his own character in issue.\u00a0 This is subject to the overriding principles of constitutional justice and the right of a fair trial in due course of law.\u00a0 The Judge may exercise her discretion to exclude evidence that might otherwise be admissible under the statutory exception, which may have the effect of prejudicing a fair trial.<\/p>\n<p>The more modern tests refer to \u201csimilar fact\u201d evidence.\u00a0 Where previous misconduct is strikingly similar and its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect, it may be admitted.\u00a0 There must be something in the nature of striking similarity between the previous misconduct and that charged.\u00a0 It must be indicative of a pattern or hallmark.\u00a0 Mere evidence is disposition does not suffice.<\/p>\n<p>Many of the cases relate to sexual offences committed in accordance with a particular or peculiar pattern, which is unlikely to be attributable to coincidence.\u00a0 It must be in the nature of a signature type crime or series of crimes.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"2010_Act_Restatement\"><\/span>2010 Act Restatement<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The Criminal Procedure Act 2010 amended the Criminal Justice Act 1924 in relation to the accused giving evidence and the circumstances in which evidence of his character or prior disposition may be given.\u00a0The 2010 Act provides that every person charged with an offence and his or her spouse, shall be a competent witness for the defence at any stage whether the person so charged is charged solely or jointly with any person.<\/p>\n<p>A person charged being a witness in pursuance of the Act may be asked any question in cross-examination notwithstanding that it would tend to incriminate him as to the offence concerned.\u00a0 A person charged and called \u00a0as a witness under the act shall not be asked and shall not be required to answer any question tending to show he has committed or been convicted or been charged with any offence other than that to which he is charged or is of bad character.<\/p>\n<p>However, proof that he has committed or has been convicted of other offences is admissible to show that he is guilty of the offence with which he is charged. It is admissible where<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>he has personally or by his advocate asked questions of any witness with a view to establishing his own good character or has given evidence of his good character or<\/li>\n<li>the nature and conduct of the defence are such to involve imputations on the character of persons in respect of whom the offence was alleged to have been committed or the witnesses for the prosecution;<\/li>\n<li>or he has even evidence against any other person charged with the same offence or<\/li>\n<li>the person has previously or by his advocate asked questions of any witness for the purpose of making or the conduct of the defence is such as to involve imputations on the character of a person in respect of whom the offence was alleged to have been committed and who is deceased or is incapacitated so as to be unable to give evidence.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Matters other than those above in relation to character or other convictions may be inadmissible as being irrelevant. That somebody did something on another occasion will not necessarily be probative that they did the same thing on a later occasion.<\/p>\n<p>Investigations on previous occasions falling short of being charged will generally be irrelevant. The general principle is that a person should not be tried on the basis of his character.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Similar_Fact_Evidence\"><\/span>Similar Fact Evidence<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Similar fact evidence may be admissible for specific purposes only. \u00a0It may be admitted in certain types of cases where it goes beyond showing evidence of disposition. It may establish that the accused committed each offence because of the particular features common to each.<\/p>\n<p>It may establish in some contexts, where the accused is proved to have committed one offence that another similar offence was committed by him. Similar fact evidence may be admissible, where in the circumstances there is an inherent improbability of several persons making up exactly the same or similar stories<\/p>\n<p>The evidence must not be offered for the purpose of showing a general propensity to commit crimes of the types concerned.\u00a0 It must be sufficiently relevant to the case concerned<\/p>\n<p>Similar fact evidence may be admissible where it would rebut a defence or accident, innocent explanation or denial. In context, the probative value of evidence on the earlier similar occasion may be such that it wholly undermines the credibility of such defence. For example, the credibility of the complainant might be plausible if the evidence was restricted to a single incident but might be otherwise if it is proved that there have been several such incidents.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Background_Evidence\"><\/span>Background Evidence<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Claims of prolonged child sex may raise issues and similar facts and potential prejudice.\u00a0 There may have been repeated and consistent acts of abuse, which may be indistinguishable in the mind of the victim.\u00a0 They might recall that the same abuse has happened repeatedly without being able to identify specific occasions.<\/p>\n<p>Background evidence is evidence that is relevant and necessary to a fact to be determined in the case.\u00a0 It may be admitted to render comprehensible the relationship between the complainant and the accused.\u00a0 It may relate to issues such as consent or absence of complaint over years.<\/p>\n<p>Evidence that is closely and inextricably linked to the offences and the relationship and forms part of the background and body of evidence necessary to render the position complete and coherent, may be allowed by the trial Judge as a matter of discretion.\u00a0 It may be admissible where it is part of the necessary background relationship and context and are an integral part of the facts in issue.<\/p>\n<p><!--nextpage--><\/p>\n<h2>CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2010<\/h2>\n<h4>Giving of Evidence<\/h4>\n<h4>Amendment of Criminal Justice (Evidence) Act 1924.<\/h4>\n<p>33.\u2014 The Criminal Justice (Evidence) Act 1924 is amended\u2014<\/p>\n<p>(a) in section (1)(f)\u2014<\/p>\n<p>(i) in subparagraph (ii)\u2014<\/p>\n<p>(I) by the substitution of \u201cquestions of any witness\u201d for \u201cquestions for the witnesses for the prosecution\u201d, and<\/p>\n<p>(II) by the substitution of \u201cperson in respect of whom the offence was alleged to have been committed\u201d for \u201cprosecutor\u201d,<\/p>\n<p>and<\/p>\n<p>(ii) by the insertion of the following subparagraph after subparagraph (iii):<\/p>\n<p>\u201c(iiia) the person has personally or by the person\u2019s advocate asked questions of any witness for the purpose of making, or the conduct of the defence is such as to involve, imputations on the character of a person in respect of whom the offence was alleged to have been committed and who is deceased or is so incapacitated as to be unable to give evidence; or\u201d,<\/p>\n<p>and<\/p>\n<p>(b) by the insertion of the following section after section 1:<\/p>\n<p>\u201c<\/p>\n<h4>Evidence of character.<\/h4>\n<p>1A.\u2014 Where a person charged with an offence intends to adduce evidence, personally or by the person\u2019s advocate, of a witness, including the person, that would involve imputations on the character of a prosecution witness or a person in respect of whom the offence is alleged to have been committed and who is either deceased or so incapacitated as to be unable to give evidence, or evidence of the good character of the person\u2014<\/p>\n<p>(a) the person may do so only if he or she\u2014<\/p>\n<p>(i) has given, either personally or by his or her advocate, at least 7 days\u2019 notice to the prosecution of that intention, or<\/p>\n<p>(ii) has applied to the court, citing the reasons why it is not possible to give the notice, and been granted leave to do so,<\/p>\n<p>and<\/p>\n<p>(b) notwithstanding section 1(f), the person may be called as a witness and be asked, and the prosecution may ask any other witness, questions that\u2014<\/p>\n<p>(i) would show that the person has been convicted of any offence other than the one wherewith he or she is then charged, or is of bad character, or<\/p>\n<p>(ii) would show that the person in respect of whom the offence was alleged to have been committed is of good character.\u201d.<\/p>\n<h4>Expert evidence adduced by defence.<\/h4>\n<p>34.\u2014 (1) An accused shall not call an expert witness or adduce expert evidence unless leave to do so has been granted under this section.<\/p>\n<p>F12[(2) Where the defence intends to call an expert witness or adduce expert evidence, whether or not in response to such evidence presented by the prosecution, notice of the intention shall be given to the prosecution at least 28 days prior to\u2014<\/p>\n<p>(a) the scheduled date of the start of the trial,<\/p>\n<p>(b) the scheduled date of a preliminary trial hearing (within the meaning of Part 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2021), where the defence intends to call the expert witness or adduce the expert evidence, as the case may be, at that hearing, or<\/p>\n<p>(c) such earlier date as the court may direct.]<\/p>\n<p>(3) A notice under subsection (2) shall be in writing and shall include\u2014<\/p>\n<p>(a) the name and address of the expert witness, and<\/p>\n<p>(b) any report prepared by the expert witness concerning a matter relevant to the case, including details of any analysis carried out by or on behalf of, or relied upon by, the expert witness, or a summary of the findings of the expert witness.<\/p>\n<p>(4) The court may grant leave to call an expert witness or adduce expert evidence even if no report or summary of the findings are included as required by subsection (3)(b), if the court is satisfied that the accused took all reasonable steps to secure the report or summary before giving the notice.<\/p>\n<p>(5) The court shall grant leave under this section to call an expert witness or adduce expert evidence, on application by the defence, if it is satisfied that the expert evidence to be adduced satisfies the requirements of any enactment or rule of law relating to evidence and that\u2014<\/p>\n<p>(a) subsections (2) and (3) have been complied with,<\/p>\n<p>F12[(b) where notice was not given within the period specified in paragraph (a), (b) or (c), as the case may be, of subsection (2) \u2014<\/p>\n<p>(i) it would not, in all the circumstances of the case, have been reasonably possible for the defence to have done so, or<\/p>\n<p>(ii) it is otherwise necessary in the interests of justice that the expert witness give evidence or the expert evidence be adduced,<\/p>\n<p>or]<\/p>\n<p>(c) where the prosecution has adduced expert evidence, a matter arose from that expert\u2019s testimony that was not reasonably possible for the defence to have anticipated and it would be in the interests of justice for that matter to be further examined in order to establish its relevance to the case.<\/p>\n<p>(6) The prosecution shall be heard in an application under subsection (4) or (5).<\/p>\n<p>(7) A notice required by this section to be given to the prosecution may be given by delivering it to the prosecutor, or by leaving it at his or her office or by sending it by registered post to his or her office.<\/p>\n<p>(8) Where the court grants leave under this section, the prosecution shall be given a reasonable opportunity to consider the report or summary before the expert witness gives the evidence or the evidence is otherwise adduced.<\/p>\n<p>(9) In this section\u2014<\/p>\n<p>\u201cexpert evidence\u201d means evidence of fact or opinion given by an expert witness, and<\/p>\n<p>\u201cexpert witness\u201d means a person who appears to the court to possess the appropriate qualifications or experience about the matter to which the witness&#8217;s evidence relates.<\/p>\n<p>Annotations:<\/p>\n<p>Amendments:<\/p>\n<p>F12<br \/>\nSubstituted (28.02.2022) by Criminal Procedure Act 2021 (7\/2021), s. 18(a), (b), S.I. No. 79 of 2022.<\/p>\n<h4>Return or disposal of property to be used as evidence.<\/h4>\n<p>35.\u2014 (1) This section applies where property that is to be entered in evidence in a criminal trial is to be\u2014<\/p>\n<p>(a) returned to its owner, or<\/p>\n<p>(b) disposed of,<\/p>\n<p>before the trial begins.<\/p>\n<p>(2) Where the prosecution proposes to dispose of property that is to be entered in evidence or return it to its owner before the scheduled date of the start of the trial, the prosecution shall serve a notice under this section (the \u201cprosecution notice\u201d) on the accused at any time that is at least 23 days prior to that date.<\/p>\n<p>(3) The prosecution notice shall contain a description of the property in sufficient detail to identify it and a statement as to the relevance of the property to the proceedings, together with\u2014<\/p>\n<p>(a) one or more photographs of the property, and<\/p>\n<p>(b) any report that the prosecution proposes to enter in evidence arising from the analysis of the property, including analysis of any materials found in or on the property (the \u201cprosecution report of evidence\u201d).<\/p>\n<p>(4) Not later than 7 days after service of the prosecution notice under subsection (2), the defence shall serve on the prosecution a notice in writing (the \u201cdefence notice\u201d) that indicates one of the following:<\/p>\n<p>(a) that the defence accepts the prosecution notice and agrees to the return or disposal of the property;<\/p>\n<p>(b) that the defence wishes to provide to the prosecution a report that conforms with subsection (3) (the \u201cdefence report of evidence\u201d);<\/p>\n<p>(c) that the defence requires the property to be available as an exhibit at the trial.<\/p>\n<p>(5) Where the defence notice served under subsection (4) is a notice mentioned in paragraph (b) of that subsection, then, notwithstanding section 34, the defence shall, not later than 7 days after service of that notice, serve the defence report of evidence on the prosecution.<\/p>\n<p>(6) Where a defence report of evidence is served on the prosecution under subsection (5), the prosecution shall, not later than 3 days prior to the scheduled date of the start of the trial, provide to the defence and the court a notice stating whether it accepts or rejects that notice (the \u201cprosecution notice of reply\u201d).<\/p>\n<p>(7) If the defence notice under subsection (4) is made under paragraph (a) of that subsection or is made under paragraph (b) of that subsection and a defence report of evidence is served under subsection (5) and accepted under subsection (6), then\u2014<\/p>\n<p>(a) a member of the Garda S\u00edoch\u00e1na not below the rank of inspector shall, on receipt by him or her of a copy of the notice referred to in subsection (4) or (6), cause the property to be returned or disposed of, as the case may be,<\/p>\n<p>(b) the member referred to in paragraph (a) shall keep a written record of the return or disposal of the property, and<\/p>\n<p>(c) where the property is returned to its owner, the owner shall acknowledge in writing the receipt of the property.<\/p>\n<p>(8) The following rules apply to admissibility of evidence:<\/p>\n<p>(a) where subsection (4)(a) applies, the prosecution report of evidence is proof of the facts stated therein, unless the contrary is shown;<\/p>\n<p>(b) where subsection (4)(b) applies and a defence report of evidence is served on the prosecution under subsection (5) and accepted under subsection (6), the defence report of evidence is proof of the facts stated therein, unless the contrary is shown;<\/p>\n<p>(c) where subsection (4)(c) applies, the property may be admitted as evidence in any trial in which the property is otherwise admissible;<\/p>\n<p>(d) in any other case, a report prepared under subsection (3) or (5) may be admitted as evidence in any trial in which the property is otherwise admissible.<\/p>\n<p>(9) Any person who prepares information contained in a report under subsection (3) or (5) may be called to give evidence in relation to all or any part of the report, and may be cross-examined on that evidence.<\/p>\n<!--themify_builder_content-->\n<div id=\"themify_builder_content-1551\" data-postid=\"1551\" class=\"themify_builder_content themify_builder_content-1551 themify_builder tf_clear\">\n    <\/div>\n<!--\/themify_builder_content-->\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Character Character evidence in relation to the accused is generally inadmissible.\u00a0 It seeks to attack a person\u2019s credibility on the basis of his general reputation for truthfulness. The courts allow character evidence in some limited cases where its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effects.\u00a0 Good character may be offered by evidence of good reputation through [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[69],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1551"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1551"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1551\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":33787,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1551\/revisions\/33787"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1551"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1551"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1551"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}