Join my Telegram Channel for Latest Updates

Character Evidence In Uganda

What is character evidence? What is the admissibility and relevance of character evidence in Ugandan courts.

character evidence
Character evidence is a type of evidence that is introduced in a legal case to show that a person has a certain character trait or tendency. It is typically used to either support or refute a claim made by the prosecution or defense. 

Character evidence in Uganda is provided for by the Evidence Act from Sections 50 - 54 of the Evidence Act.

For example, if the prosecution is trying to establish that a defendant is dishonest, they may introduce character evidence to show that the defendant has a history of lying  and being dishonest. 

Similarly, if the defence is trying to establish that the defendant is peaceful and non-violent, they may introduce character evidence to show that the defendant has a history of being calm and well behaved.

According to Section 54 of the Evidence Act, Character is comprised of both Reputation and Disposition.

Reputation

Reputation is what others think of a person based on their behaviour and character. It is the general perception of an individual within a community or group. 

A person with a good reputation is often seen as trustworthy and reliable, while a person with a poor reputation may be seen as untrustworthy or dishonest. Reputation is often based on past actions and can be difficult to change once established.

Disposition

Disposition refers to a person's natural tendencies or inclinations. It's the way a person tends to behave or react in certain situations. It defines what a person is. 

Someone with a calm disposition might be slow to anger, while someone with a more hot-headed disposition might be quicker to become agitated or upset. Disposition can be influenced by a person's personality, experiences, and environment.

Note: It is also worth noting that a person can have a good reputation in the eyes of other people but have a bad disposition

Character evidence in Uganda can be presented in a variety of forms, including testimony from witnesses, written statements, and records of past behavior. 

It is important to note that character evidence in Uganda is typically only admissible in court if it is relevant to the case at hand. In other words, it must be directly related to the issue being in determination.

Admissibility of Character Evidence in Criminal Law

As a general rule in common law, character evidence is generally not admissible to prove a person's innocence or guilt. 

However, in Uganda, there are a few exceptions to this rule under the Evidence Act under Section 51.

This is because character evidence is considered to be inherently prejudicial, meaning that it may unfairly influence the jury or assessors' decision by suggesting that the person is more likely to have committed the crime based on their character.

 The admissibility of character evidence is governed by Sections 50 - 54 of the Evidence Act.

Evidence of Good Character.

Evidence of a defendant showing that they are of good character is admissible. The defendant can adduce evidence showing their good character before the court to impute their innocence of the offence they are currently charged with. 

Section 51 of the Evidence Act states that in criminal proceedings the fact that the person accused is of a good character is relevant.

Such proposition is supported by the case of Rex V Rowtown where it was held that the admission of good character as evidence to infer innocence on the part of the accused was preferred as opposed to the admission of bad character to impute guilt on the part of the accused. That such rationale was based on the goals of legal systems to ensure fairness and give an accused a better chance at building their case.

However, once a defendant adduces evidence of good character, this puts their character in issue. 

This opens doors for the prosecution to rebut such allegations and give a contrary account of events. This may involve the advancement of evidence or asking questions showing that the defendant is of bad character. 

Evidence of Bad Character

As a general rule, bad character evidence is irrelevant and hence not admissible. However, there are various exceptions to this rule. 

Where the accused gives evidence of their good character, bad character evidence can be adduced to refute the claims of the accused.

If the accused gives testimony about their good character through their statements or answers to questions asked of them during the trial, it is said that they have brought their character in issue. 
In this case, evidence of the accused's bad character may be considered relevant and therefore allowed to be presented in court.

The Evidence Act under Section 52 (a) permits the admission of bad character if evidence has been given by the accused person or their advocate for the purpose of showing that they have a good character.

This was evidenced in Stirland V DPP 1944, where the appellant showed that he was of good character and swore that had not been charged with any offense whatsoever before. As a result, the prosecution presented evidence showing that the accused was dismissed from his previous job on allegations of misconduct (bad character evidence). The court held that once a defendant puts their character in issue, it is permissible for the prosecution to adduce evidence of bad character against the accused. This can be through cross-examination to cross-examine and adduce evidence that allegations of good character by the accused are not true. 

Bad character evidence is admissible if the accused has been previously charged and convicted of a similar offence in the past. 

Under this exception, the previous offense convictions of a defendant allow character evidence to be introduced if it is relevant to show the defendant's prior bad acts or criminal history. This exception is typically used to establish a pattern of behavior or to show that the defendant has a history of committing similar crimes.

Section 52 (b) of the Evidence Act states that proof that the accused has committed or been convicted of another offence is admissible evidence to show that they are guilty of the offence with which they are being charged.

This was illustrated in the case of Uganda V Olega Muhamad 2016 in which the accused was charged with aggravated defilement. The prosecution relied on bad character evidence showing the bad previous conduct of the defendant. It was established that at the time the current offence of aggravated defilement was committed, the accused was on bail, facing another charge of aggravated defilement in another court. Justice Stephen Mubiru ruled against the accused stating that the evidence established the accused’s propensity to sexually assault young girls which effectively rebutted the accused's defence.

Furthermore, it was stated in Uganda V Olega (supra) that evidence of previous charges is admissible even where the accused was previously acquitted of charges based on those allegations as well as allegations that he had never been tried.

Bad character evidence can be admissible if the accused gives a defense that makes imputations on the character of a witness.

Under this exception, if the accused raises a defense that relies on the witness's character or draws imputations on the character of a witness, such as alleging that the witness is lying or untruthful, the prosecution may be allowed to introduce character evidence to refute the defense. 

In Section 52(c), evidence of bad character if the nature of the accused's defence makes imputations on the character of the complainant or the witnesses.

This is because the defense has essentially put the witness's character at issue and opened the door to the introduction of character evidence.

Evidence of bad character is relevant and hence admissible if the accused ‘gives evidence against’ any other person charged with the same offence.

Under this exception, if the accused testifies as a witness in a case against another person charged with a similar offense, the prosecution may be allowed to introduce evidence of the accused's bad character in order to attack the credibility of the accused's testimony. This is because the accused's credibility as a witness may be relevant to the case at hand, and evidence of the accused's bad character may be probative of their credibility.

To "Give evidence against" someone means to give evidence in a legal proceeding that is harmful or damaging to that person. This can take the form of testimony in court, statements to investigators, or written statements. When a person testifies against someone else, they are essentially accusing the other person of wrongdoing and providing evidence to support their accusation.

Character Evidence in Civil Law

In civil cases, character evidence is generally not admissible. The Evidence Act under Section 50 states that the character of any person involved in a civil case is irrelevant unless it is relevant based on the facts of the case. 

However, there are exceptions to this rule. In some cases, character evidence may be admissible to help the court determine the amount of damages to award. (Section 54)

In general, however, character evidence is not considered to be a major factor in civil cases.

Conclusion

Overall, character evidence is generally not admissible in legal cases due to its prejudicial nature. However, there are a few exceptions to this rule that allow for the admissibility of character evidence in certain circumstances, such as to establish a motive or to prove a pattern of behavior. See Section 50-54 of the Evidence Act

It is important to note that character evidence is generally not considered to be as reliable or persuasive as other types of evidence, such as eyewitness testimony or physical evidence. This is because character evidence is based on subjective opinions and impressions, rather than objective facts.

Legal scholar | Tech Enthusiast

Post a Comment