Students should be careful to distinguish

1. (i) the case when the character of the accused is a matter which is in Issue, i.e. when the purpose of the evidence is to establish what is the character of the accused, from

2. (ii) the case in which a fact in issue is not the accused's character, but some fact (e.g. his identity, or his mens red) to prove which evidence of his conduct (whether discreditable or not) on other occasions, or even his previous conviction may be relevant; and from

3. (iii) the case in which a fact in issue is whether or not the accused has been previously convicted of crime. Thus

4. (i) the accused's character is in issue in A, B (1) and (4), C (1) and (5) below;

5. (ii) his conduct on other occasions is relevant in B (2) and (3), and his previous conviction is relevant in C (4) and (6) below;

6. (iii) his previous conviction is in issue in C (2) and (3) below.

EVIDENCE OF GENERAL BAD REPUTATION is only admissible:

1. (1) Under the Criminal Evidence Act, 1898, s. 1 (f). If a prisoner has exposed himself to cross-examination as to his reputation and denies that it is bad, he may (apparently) be contradicted by independent evidence under the Criminal Procedure Act, 1865, s. 6.

2. (2) To rebut evidence of good reputation either set up by the defence or extracted by the defence in cross-examination (R. v. Harrington (1908) 1 Cr.App.R. 113; R. v. Redd [1923] 1 K.B. 104; R. v. Samuel (1956) 40 Cr.App.R. 8, where the prisoner, accused of larceny on finding, was held to have put the whole of his character in issue by giving evidence of his having, on other occasions, given back lost goods which he had found). But where the defence has merely attacked the character of witnesses for the prosecution (i.e. the defence has not set up the prisoner's good character, nor has he elected to give evidence) and has suggested that they are unreliable, this does not put the prisoner's character in issue (R. v. Butterwasser [1947] 2 All E.R. 415 (T.A.C.)).