An addition to our collection of cases illustrating when absence of a good character direction requires the quashing of a conviction: Campbell v R [2010] UKPC 26 (3 November 2010).
Here the omission of the direction was not the result of a tactical decision by the defence, and the case involved a contest between an eyewitness and the accused who gave evidence. In such cases the direction would be "of greatest potential significance" (para 45).
The Board also summarised the requirements for an eyewitness identification direction (para 28), and began with an extended discussion of when the Board can grant special leave to appeal to it where the lower court has refused leave (para 5-25).
