Where inadmissible evidence of an accused's bad character falls spontaneously from a witness in a finely balanced case, and the jury is never directed to disregard it, a miscarriage of justice may result even though the verdict was open on the admissible evidence. The chronology of jury deliberations (including an initial report of being hung) may be relevant to assessing whether the prejudicial evidence tipped the scales. The dissent illustrates the competing view that where the inadmissible evidence adds little to what the jury already knew from admissible evidence, the risk of prejudice may be insignificant.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.