HL Deb 20 November 2003 vol 654 cc2066-77

114 Before Clause 90, insert the following new Clause—

"Evidence of bad character

  1. (1) The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c. 60) ("the 1984 Act") is amended as follows.
  2. (2) After Section 82 of the 1984 Act Part VIII— interpretation) insert—

"PART VIII A EVIDENCE OF BAD CHARACTER

82A Bad character

References in this Part to evidence of a person's bad character are references to evidence which shows that—

  1. (a) he has committed an offence, or
  2. (b) he has behaved, or is disposed to behave in a way that, in the opinion of the court, would be viewed with disapproval by a reasonable person.

82B Requirement of leave

  1. (1) In criminal proceedings, evidence of a person's bad character is admissible only with leave of the court, unless the evidence—
    1. (a) has to do with the alleged facts of the offence with which the defendant is charged, or
    2. (b) is evidence of misconduct in connection with the investigation or prosecution of that offence.
  2. (2) This section does not apply in relation to an item of evidence if—
    1. (a) all parties to the proceedings agree to the evidence being admissible, or
    2. (b) in the case of evidence of the defendant's bad character, the evidence is adduced by the defendant himself or is given in answer to a question asked by him in cross-examination and intended to elicit it.

82C Non-defendant's bad character

In the case of evidence of the bad character of a person other than the defendant, the court is not to give leave under section 82B unless the evidence falls within section 82D or 82E.

82D Evidence with explanatory value

Evidence falls within this section if—

  1. (a) without it, the court or jury would find it impossible or difficult properly to understand other evidence in the case, and
  2. (b) its value for understanding the case as a whole is substantial.

82E Evidence going to a matter in issue

  1. (1) Evidence falls within this section if it has substantial probative value in relation to a matter which—
    1. (a) is a matter in issue in the proceedings and
    2. (b) is of substantial importance in the context of the case as a whole.
  2. (2) In assessing the probative value of evidence for the purposes of this section, the court must have regard to the following factors (and to any others it considers relevant)—
    1. (a) the nature and number of the events, or other things, to which the evidence relates;
    2. (b) when those events or things are alleged to have appened or existed;
    3. (c) where—
      1. (i) the evidence is evidence of a person's misconduct, and
        2. 2067
      2. (ii) it is suggested that the evidence has probative value by reason of similarity between that misconduct and other alleged misconduct,
      • the nature and extent of the similarities and the dissimilarities between each of the alleged instances of misconduct;
    4. (d) where—
      1. (i) the evidence is evidence of a person's misconduct,
      2. (ii) it is suggested that that person is also responsible for the misconduct charged, and
      3. (iii) the identity of the person responsible for the misconduct charged is disputed,
      • the extent to which the evidence shows or tends to show that the same person was responsible each time.
  3. (3) In subsection (2)(d) "misconduct charged" means the misconduct constituting the offence with which the defendant is charged.

82F Defendant's bad character

In the case of evidence of the defendant's bad character, the court is not to give leave under section 82B, unless the evidence falls within section 82G, 82H, 82I, 82J or 82K.

82G Evidence with explanatory value

  1. (1) Evidence falls within this section if the following three conditions are met.
  2. (2) The first condition is that, without the evidence, the court or jury would find it impossible or difficult properly to understand other evidence in the case.
  3. (3) The second condition is that the value of the evidence for understanding the case as a whole is substantial.
  4. (4) The third condition is that the court is satisfied—
    1. (a) that, in all the circumstances of the case, the evidence carries no risk of prejudice to the defendant, or
    2. (b) that the value of the evidence for understanding the case as a whole is such that, taking account of the risk of prejudice, the interests of justice nevertheless require the evidence to be admissible.

82H Evidence going to a matter in issue

  1. (1) Evidence falls within this section if the following two conditions are met.
  2. (2) The first condition is that the evidence has substantial probative value in relation to a matter which—
    1. (a) is a matter in issue in the proceedings, and
    2. (b) is of substantial importance in the context of the case as a whole.
  3. (3) The second condition is that the court is satisfied—
    1. (a) that, in all the circumstances of the case, the evidence carries no risk of prejudice to the defendant, or
    2. (b) that, taking account of the risk of prejudice, the interests of justice nevertheless require the evidence to be admissible in view of—
      1. (i) how much probative value it has in relation to the matter in issue,
      2. (ii) what other evidence has been, or can be, given on that matter, and
      3. (iii) how important that matter is in the context of the case as a whole.
    2068
  4. (4) In determining whether the two conditions are met, the court must have regard to the factors listed in section 5(2) (and to any others it considers relevant).
  5. (5) For the purposes of this section, whether the defendant has a propensity to be untruthful is not to be regarded as a matter in issue in the proceedings.
  6. (6) Only prosecution evidence can fall within this section.

82I Evidence going to credibility

  1. (1) This section applies only where—
    1. (a) the defendant makes an attack on a person's character, and
    2. (b) the effect of the attack is to suggest, or to support a suggestion, that the person has a propensity to be untruthful.
  2. (2) For the purposes of this section, a defendant makes an attack on a person's character where—
    1. (a) he adduces evidence of the person's bad character, other than—
      1. (i) evidence that has to do with the alleged facts of the offence with which the defendant is charged, or
      2. (ii) evidence of misconduct in connection with the investigation or prosecution of that offence,
    2. (b) he asks questions in cross-examination that are intended to elicit evidence of the kind referred to in paragraph (a), or
    3. (c) evidence is given of an assertion made about the person by the defendant—
      1. (i) on being questioned under caution, before charge, about the offence with which he is charged, or
      2. (ii) on being charged with the offence or officially informed that he might be prosecuted for it,
      • and the assertion is such that, if it were made in evidence, the evidence containing the assertion would be evidence of the kind referred to in paragraph (a).
  3. (3) Evidence falls within this section if the following three conditions are met.
  4. (4) The first condition is that the evidence has substantial probative value in showing that the defendant has a propensity to be untruthful.
  5. (5) The second condition is that, without the evidence the court or jury would get an inaccurate impression of the defendant's propensity to be untruthful in comparison with that of the other person.
  6. (6) The third condition is that the court is satisfied—
    1. (a) that, in all the circumstances of the case, the evidence carries no risk of prejudice to the defendant, or
    2. (b) that, taking account of the risk of prejudice, the interests of justice nevertheless require the evidence to be admissible in view of—
      1. (i) how much probative value it has in showing that the defendant has a propensity to be untruthful,
      2. (ii) what other evidence has been, or can be, given on that matter, and
      3. (iii) how important it is, in the context of the case as a whole, to prevent the impression mentioned in subsection (5).
    2069
  7. (7) In determining whether the three conditions are met the court must have regard to the following factors (and to any others it considers relevant)—
    1. (a) the nature and number of the events, or other things, to which the defendant's attack relates and of those to which the evidence in question (the responding evidence) relates;
    2. (b) when those events or things are alleged to have happened or existed;
    3. (c) how important is the defendant's propensity to be untruthful, and that of the other person, in the context of the prosecution case and of the defence case;
    4. (d) in a case where this section applies by virtue of subsection (2)(b), whether or not the evidence intended to be elicited is actually given;
    5. (e) how inaccurate the impression mentioned in subsection (5) would be;
    6. (f) where the responding evidence is of a spent conviction, the fact that the conviction is spent;
    7. (g) any risk that admitting the responding evidence would be confusing or misleading, or would unduly prolong the proceedings.
  8. (8) Only prosecution evidence can fall within this section.

82J Evidence to correct false impression

  1. (1) This section applies only where the defendant is responsible for the making of an express or implied assertion which is apt to give the court or jury a false or misleading impression about the defendant.
  2. (2) Evidence falls within this section if the following two conditions are met.
  3. (3) The first condition is that the evidence has substantial probative value in correcting the false or misleading impression.
  4. (4) The second condition is that the court is satisfied—
    1. (a) that, in all the circumstances of the case, the evidence carries no risk of prejudice to the defendant, or
    2. (b) that, taking account of the risk of prejudice, the interests of justice nevertheless require the evidence to be admissible in view of—
    1. (i) how much probative value it has in correcting the false or misleading impression,
    2. (ii) what other evidence has been, or can be, given to correct that impression, and
    3. (iii) how important it is, in the context of the case as a whole, for that impression to be corrected.
  5. (5) For the purposes of this section, a defendant is responsible for the making of an assertion if—
    1. (a) the assertion is made by the defendant in the proceedings (whether or not in evidence given by him),
    2. (b) the assertion was made by the defendant—
      1. (i) on being questioned under caution, before charge, about the offence with which he is charged, or
      2. (ii) on being charged with the offence or officially informed that he might be prosecuted for it,
      • and evidence of the assertion is given in the proceedings,
    3. (c) the assertion is made by a witness called by the defendant.
      4. 2070
    4. (d) the assertion is made by any witness in cross- examination in response to a question asked by the defendant and intended, in the opinion of the court, to elicit it, or
    5. (e) the assertion was made by any person out of court and the defendant adduces evidence of it in the proceedings.
  6. (6) Where it appears to the court that a defendant, by means of his conduct (other than the giving of evidence) in the proceedings, is seeking to give the court or jury an impression about himself that is false or misleading the court may if it appears just to do so treat the defendant as being responsible for the making of an assertion which is apt to give that impression
  7. (7) In subsection (6) "conduct" includes appearance or dress.
  8. (8) In determining whether the two conditions arc met, the court must have regard to the following factors (and to any others it considers relevant)—
    1. (a) the nature of the impression given by the assertion referred to in subsection (1), and how false or misleading that impression is;
    2. (b) by whom and in what circumstances the assertion is or was made;
    3. (c) the nature and number of the events, or other things, to which the evidence in question (the correcting evidence) relates,
    4. (d) when those events or things are alleged to have happened or existed;
    5. (e) where the correcting evidence is of a spent conviction, the fact that the conviction is spent;
    6. (f) any risk that admitting the correcting evidence would be confusing or misleading, or would unduly prolong the proceedings.
  9. (9) Where in proceedings before a magistrates' court—
    1. (a) the defendant is responsible for the making of an assertion which is apt to give the court a certain impression about the defendant,
    2. (b) the prosecution allege that the impression is false or misleading, and
    3. (c) in reliance on this section the prosecution propose to apply for leave under section 82B to adduce or elicit evidence to correct the impression.
  10. (10) Only prosecution evidence can fall within this section.

82K Evidence going to an issue between co-defendants

  1. (1) Evidence falls within this section if it has substantial probative value in relation to a matter which—
    1. (a) is a matter in issue between the defendant and a co- defendant, and
    2. (b) is of substantial importance in the context of the case as a whole.
  2. (2) For the purposes of this section, evidence is not to be treated as having the probative value mentioned in subsection (1) by virtue of its relevance to the question whether the defendant has a propensity to be untruthful unless the nature or conduct of his defence is such as to undermine the co-defendant's defence.
  3. (3) In assessing the probative value of evidence for the purposes of this section, the court must have regard to the factors listed in section 82B(2) (and to any others it considers relevant).
  4. (4) Only evidence—
    1. (a) which is to be (or has been) adduced by the co- defendant or
    2. (b) which a witness is to be invited to give (or has given) in cross-examination by the co-defendant,
    2071

82L Trying more than one offence together

  1. (1) In section 5 of the Indictments Act 1915 (c. 90) (orders for separate trial etc) insert after subsection (2)—
  2. (2) In subsection (3) of that section, after "before trial" insert "(in a case not falling within subsection (2A) above)".
  3. (3) Where in proceedings before a magistrates' court—
    1. (a) it is proposed that the defendant be tried for two or more offences together,
    2. (b) the prosecution propose to adduce evidence which is admissible in relation to one of the offences but which, in relation to another, is evidence of the person's bad character and is inadmissible, and
    3. (c) the defendant objects before trial to the offences mentioned in paragraph (b) being tried together,

82M Stopping the case where evidence contaminated

  1. (1) If on a defendant's trial on indictment for an offence—
    1. (a) evidence of his bad character has been admitted with leave under section 82B, and
    2. (b) the court is satisfied at any time after the close of the case for the prosecution that—
      1. (i) the evidence is contaminated, and
      2. (ii) the contamination is such that, considering the importance of the evidence to the case against the defendant, his conviction of the offence would be unsafe,
      • the court must either direct the jury to acquit the defendant of the offence or, if it considers that there ought to be a retrial, discharge the jury.
  2. (2) Where—
    1. (a) a jury is directed under subsection (1) to acquit a defendant of an offence, and
    2. (b) the circumstances are such that, apart from this subsection, the defendant could if acquitted of that offence be found guilty of another offence,
  3. (3) If—
    1. (a) a jury is required to determine under section 4A(2) of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 (c. 84) whether a person charged on an indictment with an offence did the act or made the omission charged,
    2. (b) evidence of the person's bad character has been admitted with leave under section 82B, and
      3. 2072
    3. (c) the court is satisfied at any time after the close of the case for the prosecution that—
      1. (i) the evidence is contaminated, and
      2. (ii) the contamination is such that, considering the importance of the evidence to the case against the person, a finding that he did the act or made the omission would be unsafe,
      • the court must either direct the jury to acquit the defendant of the offence or, if it considers that there ought to be a rehearing, discharge the jury.
  4. (4) This section does not prejudice any other power a court may have to direct a jury to acquit a person of an offence or to discharge a jury.
  5. (5) For the purposes of this section, a person's evidence is contaminated where—
    1. (a) as a result of an agreement or understanding between the person and one or more others, or
    2. (b) as a result of the person being aware of anything alleged by one or more others who are, or could be, witnesses in the proceedings,

82N Assumption of truth in assessment of probative value

  1. (1) Subject to subsection (2), a reference in this Act to the probative value of evidence is a reference to its probative value on the assumption that it is true.
  2. (2) In assessing the probative value of an item of evidence for any purpose of this Act, a court need not assume that the evidence is true if it appears, on the basis of any material before the court (including any evidence it decides to hear on the matter), that no court or jury could reasonably find it to be true.

82O Court's duty to give reasons for rulings

  1. (1) Where the court makes a relevant ruling—
    1. (a) it must state in open court (but in the absence of the jury, if there is one) its reasons for the ruling;
    2. (b) if it is a magistrates' court, it must cause the ruling and the reasons for it to be entered in the register of the court's proceedings.
  2. (2) In this section "relevant ruling" means—
    1. (a) a ruling on whether an item of evidence is admissible only with leave under section 82B;
    2. (b) a decision whether to give leave under that section;
    3. (c) a ruling under section 82M.

82P Rules of court

  1. (1) Rules of court may make such provision as appears to the appropriate authority to be necessary or expedient for the purposes of this Act; and the appropriate authority is the authority entitled to make the rules.
  2. (2) The rules may require a party who—
    1. (a) proposes to adduce evidence of a defendant's bad character that is admissible only with leave under section 82B, or
    2. (b) proposes to cross-examine a witness with a view to eliciting such evidence,
  3. (3) The rules may provide that the court or the defendant may in such circumstances as may be prescribed, dispense with a requirement imposed by virtue of subsection (2).
  4. (4) If a party fails to comply with a requirement that has been imposed in relation to an item of evidence by virtue of subsection (2) (and not dispensed with by virtue of subsection (3)) the court may take the failure into account—
    1. (a) in deciding whether to grant leave under section 82B;and
      2. 2073
    2. (b) where leave is given, in considering the exercise of its powers with respect to costs.
  5. (5) The rules may—
    1. (a) limit the application of any provision of the rules to prescribed circumstances;
    2. (b) subject any provision of the rules to prescribed exceptions; and
    3. (c) make different provision for different cases or circumstances.
  6. (6) Nothing in this section prejudices the generality of any enactment conferring power to make rules of court; and no particular provision of this section prejudices any general provision of it.
  7. (7) In this section—

82Q Interpretation

  1. (1) In this Chapter—
  2. (2) For the purposes of this Act, evidence carries a risk of prejudice to a defendant where—
    1. (a) there is a risk that the court or jury would attach undue weight to the evidence, or
    2. (b) the nature of the matters with which the evidence deals is such as to give rise to a risk that the court or jury would find the defendant guilty without being satisfied that he was.
  3. (3) Where a defendant is charged with two or more offences in the same criminal proceedings, this Act has effect as if each offence were charged in separate proceedings; and references to the offence with which the defendant is charged are to be read accordingly.

82R Minor and consequential amendments

  1. (1) In section 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1865 (c. 18) (witness's conviction for offence may be proved if not admitted)—
    1. (a) for "A witness may be" substitute "If, upon a witness being lawfully";
    2. (b) omit "and upon being so questioned, if".
  2. (2) In section 1(2) of the Criminal Evidence Act 1898 (c. 36) (restriction of privilege against self-incrimination where defendant gives evidence) at the beginning insert "Subject to section 6 of the Criminal Evidence Act 2001 (inadmissibility of evidence of defendant's bad character)".
    3. 2074
  3. (3) In section 16(2) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963 (C. 37) (offences committed by person under 14 disregarded for purposes of evidence relating to previous convictions) for the words from "notwithstanding" to the end substitute 'even though the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (c 16) would not prevent the question from being asked".

82S Repeals

  1. (1) The common law rules governing the admissibility of evidence of bad character in criminal proceedings are abolished.
  2. (2) The rules referred to in subsection (1) include any rule under which, as an exception to the inadmissibility of hearsay evidence, evidence of a person's reputation is admissible for the purpose of proving his character, but only so far as the rule relates to evidence of bad character.
  3. (3) The following cease to have effect—
    1. (a) section 1(3) of the Criminal Evidence Act 1898 (c. 36) (which makes provision as to the questions that a defendant may be asked about his bad character in cross-examination);
    2. (b) section 27(3) of the Theft Act 1968 (c. 60) (admission of evidence of previous convictions for theft etc to prove that defendant knew goods to be stolen).""

The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—

114A Because they Mould result m a less satisfactory scheme for dealing with evidence of bad character.

The Lords insist on their amendment to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following reason—

114B Because the amendments proposed by the Louis provide a more satisfactory scheme for dealing with evidence of bad character.

115 Leave out Clause 90

The Commons disagree to this amendment but propose the following amendment to the words so restored to the Bill—

115A Page 60, line 37, leave out from beginning to "evidence" in line 2 on page 61 and insert—

References in this Chapter to evidence of a person' s "bad character" are to evidence of, or of a disposition towards, misconduct on his part, other than

The Lords disagree to Commons Amendment No. 115A, and insist on their Amendment No 115 to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following reason—

115B Clause 90, Because the amendments proposed by the Lords provide a more satisfactory scheme for dealing with evidence of bad character.

116 Leave out Clause 91

The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason—

116A Because they would result in a less satisfactory scheme for dealing with evidence of bad character.

Clause 91, The Lords insist on their Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following Reason—

116B Because the amendments proposed by the Lords provide a more satisfactory scheme for dealing with evidence of bad character.

117 Leave out Clause 92

The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following Reason—

117A Because they would result in a less satisfactory scheme for dealing with evidence of bad character.

The Lords insist on their amendment to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following reason—

117B Because the amendments proposed by the Lords provide a more satisfactory scheme for dealing with evidence of bad character.

118 Leave out Clause 93

The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—

118A Because they would result in a less satisfactory scheme for dealing with evidence of bad character.

The Lords insist on their amendment to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following reason—

118B Because the amendments proposed by the Lords provide a more satisfactory scheme for dealing with evidence of bad character.

119 Leave out Clause 94

The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—

119A Because they would result in a less satisfactory scheme for dealing with evidence of bad character.

The Lords insist on their amendment to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following reason—

119B Because the amendments proposed by the Lords provide a more satisfactory scheme for dealing with evidence of bad character.

121 Leave out Clause 96

The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—

121A Because they would result in a less satisfactory scheme for dealing with evidence of bad character.

The Lords insist on their amendment to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following reason—

121B Because the amendments proposed by the Lords provide a more satisfactory scheme for dealing with evidence of bad character.

122 Leave out Clause 97

The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—

122A Because they would result in a less satisfactory scheme for dealing with evidence of bad character.

Clause 97, The Lords insist on their amendment to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following reason—

122B Clause 97, Because the amendments proposed by the Lords provide a more satisfactory scheme for dealing with evidence of bad character.

123 Clause 98, Leave out Clause 98

The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—

123A Because they would result in a less satisfactory scheme for dealing with evidence of bad character.

The Lords insist on their amendment to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following reason—

123B Because the amendments proposed by the Lords provide a more satisfactory scheme for dealing with evidence of bad character.

124 Leave out Clause 99

The Commons disagree to this amendment but propose the following amendment to the words so restored to the Bill—

124A Page 64, line 40, leave out from "a" to end of line 41 and insert "reprehensible way"

The Lords disagree to Commons Amendment No. 124A, and insist on their Amendment No. 124 to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following reason—

124B Because the amendments proposed by the Lords provide a more satisfactory scheme for dealing with evidence of bad character.

125 Leave out Clause 100

The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—

125A Because they would result in a less satisfactory scheme for dealing with evidence of bad character.

Clause 100, The Lords insist on their amendment to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following reason—

125B Because the amendments proposed by the Lords provide a more satisfactory scheme for dealing with evidence of bad character.

126 Leave out Clause 101

The Commons disagree to this amendment hut propose the following amendment to the words so restored to the Bill—

126A Page 65, line 47, at end insert—

  1. "(2) In proceedings for an offence committed or alleged to have been committed by the defendant when aged 21 or over, evidence of his conviction for an offence when under the age of 14 is admissible only if the court is satisfied that the interests of justice so require.
  2. (3) Subsection (2) applies in addition to section 93."

The Lords disagree to Commons Amendment No 126A, and insist on their Amendment No. 126 to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following reason—

126B Because the amendments proposed by the Lords provide a more satisfactory scheme for dealing with evidence of had character

127 Leave out Clause 102

The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—

127A Because they would result in a less satisfactory scheme for dealing with evidence of bad character.

The Lords insist on their amendment to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following reason—

127B Because the amendments proposed by the Lords provide a mote satisfactory scheme for dealing with evidence of bad character.

128 Leave out Clause 103

The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—

128A Because they would result in a less satisfactory scheme for dealing with evidence of bad character.

Clause 103, The Lords insist on their amendment to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following reason—

128B Because the amendments proposed by the Lords provide a more satisfactory scheme for dealing With evidence of bad character.

129 Leave out Clause 104

The Commons disagree to this amendment but propose the following amendments to the words so restored to the Bill—

129A Page 66, line 28, leave out "require a defendant" and insert ", and, where the party in question is the prosecution, must, contain provision requiring a party"

129B Page 66, line 29, leave out "co-defendant's bad character under section 93(1)(f)" and insert "defendant's bad character"

129C Page 66, line 33, leave out "co-defendant" and insert "defendant"

129D Page 66, line 35, leave out "co-defendant" and insert "defendant"

129E Page 66, line 39, leave out "defendant" and insert "party"

The Lords disagree to Commons Amendments Nos. 129A to 129E, and insist on their Amendment No. 129 to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following reason—

129F Because the amendments proposed by the Lords provide a more satisfactory scheme for dealing with evidence of bad character.

130 Leave out Clause 105

The Commons disagree to this amendment but propose the following amendments to the words so restored to the Bill—

130A Page 67, line 26, leave out from "means" to end of line 29 and insert "the commission of an offence or other reprehensible behaviour"

130B Page 67, line 42, after "Chapter" insert "(except section 93(3)"

130C Clause 105, page 67, line 45, at end insert—

(a) under the rule in section 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1865 (c. 18) against a party impeaching the credit of his own witness by general evidence of bad character,

130D Page 67, line 47, after "(c. 23)" insert "(restriction on evidence or questions about complainant's sexual history)"

The Lords disagree to Commons Amendments Nos. 130A to 130D, and insist on their Amendment No. 130 to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following reason—

130E Because the amendments proposed by the Lords provide a more satisfactory scheme for dealing with evidence of bad character.

131 Leave out Clause 106

The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—

131A Because they would result in a less satisfactory scheme for dealing with evidence of bad character.

The Lords insist on their amendment to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following reason—

131B Because the amendments proposed by the Lords provide a more satisfactory scheme for dealing with evidence of bad character.