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

The merelyterflys decisions over the last thwenty five years or so reveal a outstandingly confusing approach to the purpose of cross-examination under s1(f)(ii)Criminal E - Essay Examplegainst the national interest ar easy to fathom and understand but lately, especially the last two decades, court decisions that require adjudication of cases in which the good or the severe moral character of the defendant is relevant to the resolution of the facts in issue, had been swarthy and muddled that students of law are often left befuddled. This is to be expected as the allowance of show up of the bad or good moral character of the accused is fully in the discretion of the judges.3 few jurors disallow hearing of designate of the character of the accused on the pretext that it is irrelevant to the case. According to Elliott, picture is relevant when it has a tendency in reason to establish the probability or improbability of a fact in issue4 Relevancy or the materiality to the issue of fact elevated in the pleadings is extremely important because if evidence is relevant as well as competent, then that evidence is admissible. What is then relevant and thusadmissible is therefore, dependent on the jurors discretion. All that the court has to say after it refuses admittance of evidence is that it does so in the interest of justice by justness of Criminal Justice Act 1988 section 25(1).5Wigmores Axiom of Admissibility which is supposed to facilitate the judges bring of their discretion to allow or disallow admission of evidence as to the good or bad character of the accused merely confuse the judges and everybody else. According to Wigmore, what can be admitted are still facts with sensible probative value unless some specific rule clearly forbids its admission. Again the term rational probative value is dependent on the interpretation of each judge. The Alfred Altmore Pope Foundation case tersely expresses this dilemma No precise and universal test of relevan cy is furnished by the law but the determination of whether particular evidence is relevant rests largely on the discretion of the court, which must be exercised