This paper examines the law on good character evidence in criminal trials through a discussion of the important but under-analysed case of Hunter, in which a five-judge Court of Appeal sought to clarify the law on good character directions to the jury. However, it is argued here that the judgment conflicts with the leading House of Lords decision in Aziz. The paper considers how the court misinterpreted the law and, in particular, the defeasible nature of the rule in Aziz and the impact of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. As a result, the circumstances in which a good character direction will be provided have diminished significantly. It is argued that this has important implications for the right to a fair trial, as good character directions act as a ‘backstop’ against miscarriages of justice. They also form a vital part of the ‘framework of fairness’ considered necessary, in lieu of reasoned jury verdicts, by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in Taxquet v Belgium. Accordingly, it is contended that Aziz rather than Hunter should be followed so that, where there is evidence of good character, a direction is normally provided as a matter of law.

中文翻译：

---

良好品格“后盾”：方向、可废止性和公平框架

本文通过讨论一个重要但分析不足的案例，对刑事审判中的良好品格证据法进行审查。猎人，其中五名法官上诉法院试图澄清对陪审团的良好品格指示的法律。然而，这里有人争辩说，该判决与上议院的主要决定相冲突。阿齐兹. 该文件考虑了法院如何曲解法律，特别是该规则的可废止性阿齐兹以及 2003 年《刑事司法法》的影响。因此，提供良好品格指导的情况显着减少。有人认为，这对公平审判权具有重要意义，因为良好的品格指导可以作为防止误判的“后盾”。它们还构成了欧洲人权法院大法庭认为必要的“公平框架”的重要组成部分，以代替合理的陪审团裁决。Taxquet v 比利时. 据此，主张阿齐兹而不是猎人应遵循，以便在有良好品格证据的情况下，通常作为法律问题提供指示。