Category: News and Views
People in the UK will have noticed that yesterday, Tony Blair triumphantly announced that within a few weeks, when section 101 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 comes into force, in certain cases jurors may be told about the defendant's previous convictions by the prosecution. all right, this provision only introduces this for theft and sexual offences where the victim is under sixteen, but more offences are likely to follow. This is one of the most dangerous erosions into the fundamentals of the constitution that this government, so disrespectful in general of anything traditionally sacred in our society, has ever attempted, although to be honest we should have seen it coming last year when they tried, unsuccessfully, to restrict the right to trial on indictment by jury. Let me explain: Tony Blair suggested yesterday that the reason for this change was because jurors are often very angry when they eventually get to hear, at the sentencing stage, about the defendant's past convictions, that they were not told about them beforehand. I sympathise with that anger, it's only natural that people might be angry in such circumstances. but that's the very reason why jurors should not be told about previous convictions before delivering their verdict: imagine a situation where you are on a jury. the evidence is finely balanced and you're not sure whether the defendant, who let's say is charged with inflicting grievous bodily harm with intent. I am counsel for the prosecution and I sense your uncertainty, so as the defence case draws to a close and I'm cross-examining a witness, I introduce evidence about the defendant's previous convictions. I ask questions selectively, so that all you learn is that the defendant has five previous convictions for unlawful wounding, common assault and assault occasioning actual bodily harm, but I don't give the witness the chance to explain that these convictions were incurred on majority verdicts only, or incurred three years ago or something like that. I then refer to the convictions again in my closing speech to you all on the jury. In short, you are reminded several times that the defendant has previous convictions. My argument is that, even if defence counsel in his closing address, and the judge in his summing up, remind you that you are the judges of fact on this offence alone, nevertheless you won't be able to put the thought of previous convictions out of your head. You'll start from a position slightly in favour of the prosecution, when in fact the situation should be quite the opposite, as it is the prosecution, not the defence, who has to prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt on this offence rather than on offences committed in the past. You see, then, what a dangerous erosion on the presumption of innocence this ridiculous, and frankly dangerous, nonsense is? All right, the final say is with the trial judge and he can rule evidence inadmissible if he so wishes, but isn't this the start of a slippery downward slope?? How long before our fanatical home secretary, David Blunkett, removes that restriction? How long before he gets frustrated that the government's targets on convictions are not being met? What he's doing here is in a sense reversing the burden of proof! Well, Charles I started a civil war like that, David, and I hope that this will be fought all the way by trial judges. I'd be interested to know what anyone who served on a jury before thinks of this, as well as anyone else.