From Law wiki, the wiki for law research

[1974] QB 274 (CA). The facts of this case are not particularly important -- what is interesting is the remarks made by the Court of Appeal about EvidenceOfGoodCharacter andevidence of bad character. The Court of Appeal upheld the ruling of the trial judge that the defendant, by accusing a prosecution witness of being homosexual, had cast an imputation on him, under the terms of s.1(3)(ii) of the CriminalEvidenceAct1898. This meant the the defendant's own character could become the subject of prosecution evidence.

It is hard to believe -- it is to be hoped -- that an allegation of homosexuality would today be taken as an imputation, nor an attack on the character of another person in the terms of the CJA_2003.

Nevertheless, this case does show that, although evidence of bad character mostly comprises evidence of previous criminal activity, or evidence that someone tends to tell lies, these are not the only kinds of behaviour that the courts consider evidence of 'bad character'.