Essay
According to R v Hanson (2005) what three requirements did the court set out when the Crown is seeking to adduce evidence to establish their propensity to commit similar crimes to which they have alreayd committed? 1) Did the history of his convictions establish a propensity to commit offences of the kind charged? 2) Did that propensity make it more likely that the defendant had committed the offence charged? 3) Was it unjust to
Correct Answer:

Answered by ExamLex AI
In R v Hanson (2005), the court set out ...View Answer
Unlock this answer now
Get Access to more Verified Answers free of charge
Correct Answer:
Answered by ExamLex AI
View Answer
Unlock this answer now
Get Access to more Verified Answers free of charge
Q1: The definition of bad character can now
Q2: In which of the situations is the
Q3: The similar fact rule was upheld by
Q5: According to R v Hanson (2005) what
Q6: Who does S101 (g) apply to ?
Q7: When will evidence be admissible under S101
Q8: Which case held that there were two
Q9: The court has a discretion to exclude
Q10: A defendant can he argue he did
Q11: When will a judge direct a jury