From Law wiki, the wiki for law research

[1993] Crim LR 58, CA. The appellant challenged his conviction for an offence of obtaining property by deception on the grounds that the judge had failed to direct the jury as to his good character (see v ye direction). He had one previous conviction for drunk driving five years before the trial. The Court of Appeal held that it would have been appropriate for the judge to have treated the defendant as a man of good character, and directed the jury to that effect.

However, courts have not always been so generous, and the question whether a defendant is of good character is regarded as a matter of judicial discretion (see RVOshea1993).