An offense that could never be shown regardless of character that is bad plainly be one which would fall within area 98(a).

An offense that could never be shown regardless of character that is bad plainly be one which would fall within area 98(a).

An offense that could never be shown regardless of bad character would obviously be the one that would fall within area 98(a). Types of these would add driving whilst disqualified contrary to area 103 for the path Traffic Act 1988 or control of a firearm having formerly been convicted of a offense of imprisonment contrary to part 21 associated with the Firearms Act 1968 https://www.camsloveaholics.com/shemale/young-18 where in actuality the fact of a previous conviction comprises a component for the actus reus.

The question of whether or not the evidence has to do with the facts of the offence is not always straightforward in other cases where proof of bad character is not an essential element of the offence. In R v McNeill 2007 EWCA Crim 2927 it was said that

“the terms associated with the statute ‘has related to’ are words of prima facie broad application, albeit constituting a expression that features become construed within the general context associated with the bad character conditions regarding the 2003 Act…. It is a sufficient working type of these terms if a person stated they were reasonably contemporaneous with and closely associated with its alleged facts ” that they either clearly encompass evidence relating to the alleged facts of an offence which would have been admissible under the common law outside the context of bad character of propensity, even before the Act, or alternatively as embracing anything directly relevant to the offence charged, provided at any rate. More