R. v. Joseph s/o Michael, Crim. Rev. 23-M-67; 28/6/67; Cross, J.

R. v. Joseph s/o Michael, Crim. Rev. 23-M-67; 28/6/67; Cross, J.

Accused was convicted of assault causing actual bodily harm. (P. C.        s.241) Under cross- examination. Accused mentioned that he had been charged with or convicted of similar offences on two previous occasions. His apparent intention was to discredit

One of the prosecution witnesses, pointing out that the same person had testified against him on the two previous occasions.

            Held: (1) As the statement was “gratuitous” introduction of the damaging evidence by the accused himself, and as it impugned the character of the prosecution witness, the magistrate “had a discretion as to whether he ought to permit cross-examination as to the previous conviction …..” (2) However, he probably did not exercise his discretion, since he apparently though that the prosecution could put the question as a matter of right. “Moreover, no warning had been given to the accused, who was unrepresented …..” (3) Although the cross-examination was inadmissible, its admission occasioned no failure of justice; the conviction and sentence were confirmed. (Crim. Proc. Code s. 346.) Citing R. v. Rook (1959) 43 Cr. App. R. 138.