Criminal Convictions and the Civil Courts

What is it about?

How should a civil court use a relevant conviction? Some have argued that a civil claim contesting the factual basis of a conviction should be struck out as an abuse of process unless new evidence has been provided which "entirely changes the aspect of the case". This article, co-authored with Matthew Dyson, argues that such a high evidential requirement is wrong in principle, inconsistent with section 11 of the Civil Evidence Act 1968, and unjust in practice. The law should recognise that there are two distinct types of cases: civil suits brought for an improper purpose, where a high level of new evidence should be required, and challenges to convictions which are in principle permissible under section 11 of the Civil Evidence Act 1968, where those which have no real prospect of success can be quickly resolved by an application for summary judgment.

Featured Image

Why is it important?

The leading cases do not always clearly distinguish between two distinct types of cases: civil suits brought for an improper purpose, where a high level of new evidence should be required, and challenges to convictions which are in principle permissible under section 11 of the Civil Evidence Act 1968, where those which have no real prospect of success can be quickly resolved by an application for summary judgment.