ADMISSIBILITY IN CIVIL PROCEEDINGS AS EVIDENCE OF OFFENDER’S PROPENSITY FOR DISHONESTY

A beneficiary under a will, who sought to establish that a fellow beneficiary had procured the will by undue influence, failed in her attempt to adduce a spent conviction as evidence of the other beneficiary’s propensity for dishonesty. Even though national newspapers had reported the conviction as that of a “crooked director” who had tried to “trick the state” of money, dishonesty was not an ingredient of the actual offence convicted of and, therefore, none could be inferred.

[2012] EWHC 3214 (Ch)