Should Robert Solomon Receive A Vye Direction At The End Of His Trial

999 Words4 Pages

This essay will consider whether Robert Solomon should receive a Vye direction at the end of his trial. This will be approached from the defence position and therefore will identify the arguments to support Robert having a Vye direction.
Vye directions were established in the case of Vye and are given by the judge when summing up to the jury. There are two limbs to this direction. The first limb relates to the defendant’s credibility and is only available to defendants who made pre-trial statements or give evidence. This will direct the jury that the likelihood that the defendant is telling the truth is higher because of their good character. The second limb relates to propensity and will direct the jury that the likelihood that defendant …show more content…

Consequently, both limbs of the vye direction should be given. A defendant will only be treated as a person of ‘effective good character’ if previous offences are ‘old, minor or irrelevant’. This is decided by considering all the ‘relevant circumstances’ of the previous offences and ‘fairness to all’. This approach will be taken as long as it is not clearly nonsense to suggest the defendant is of good character. When giving the direction to a defendant with bad character, the direction may need to be qualified or modified to avoid misleading the …show more content…

This was committed four years ago when Robert was only 21. Unlawful wounding is less serious than murder (requiring only a basic intent). This conviction is not relevant to this trial. The conviction arose out of a fight with rival football fans. Although, a weapon was used it was a bottle in Robert’s hand when punching the victim. This is scarcely different to the knife used in the murder of Michael Black. Notwithstanding the fact that Robert only became involved in the fight after his friend was attacked.
Robert has never committed an offence as serious as murder and his one conviction or use of a weapon is not enough to show a propensity to behave in this way. Moreover, both of Roberts previous offences were not premeditated unlike the armed robbery Robert is accused of that would require some preparation and thought. Furthermore, Robert has always pleaded guilty until now, he has never been found to be a liar so, he has good credibility.
Even if it is decided that Robert is not of ‘effective good character’, the judge should still use their discretion to give Robert a Vye direction. If Robert is not given the direction it would have an adverse effect on the fairness of proceedings and could mislead the jury who may believe he is guilty of this offence because of his past