From Law wiki, the wiki for law research

[1993] Crim LR 951 CA. The defendant appealled against his conviction for possession of drugs with intent to supply, on the basis that the judge did not adequately direct the jury as to his previous good character. Despite vigorous objections from the defedant's counsel, the judge had stubbornly refused to direct the jury that the defendant's good character should be taken into account when assessing his credibility and disposition towards committing the offence. The defendant had convictions for minor offences, the most recent of which was twenty years past. However, the judge did state that in his summing up that he was sure the jury would not hold these offences against the defendant.

The defendant's conviction was upheld by the Court of Appeal. In general, it seems, that if a person is entitled to avye direction then it must be given; but the Court of Appeal is reluctant to disturb a judges discretion as to whom is so entitled. For a contrary decision, see R v timson and hales (1993).