Balancing prejudice CASES

In English law, balancing prejudice refers to the judicial exercise of weighing the potential unfairness or harm to one party against the probative value or necessity of a particular course of action. It is especially relevant in evidence law and procedural decisions.

Definition and Principles

The principle recognises that courts must avoid outcomes where the prejudice caused by admitting evidence or allowing a procedural step outweighs its benefit to the fair resolution of the case. It ensures justice is not undermined by undue disadvantage.

Requirements for Establishing

• Probative value: The usefulness or relevance of the evidence or step in resolving the dispute.
• Prejudice: The risk of unfair harm, confusion, or bias arising against a party.
• Judicial discretion: Judges assess whether prejudice substantially outweighs probative value.
• Safeguards: Directions to juries or procedural limits may mitigate prejudice.

Practical Applications

In criminal law, courts balance probative value against prejudicial effect when admitting evidence of bad character or prior misconduct (R v Hanson [2005]). In civil cases, similar reasoning applies to prevent procedural steps that would unfairly disadvantage one side.

Importance

Balancing prejudice safeguards the fairness of proceedings. It ensures that evidence and procedure contribute to truth-seeking without compromising the rights of the parties or undermining confidence in justice.