General Chat

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

David Blunkett wants victims put first Juries in child sex abuse and theft cases will soon be entitled to know whether the defendant has convictions for similar offences. Prime Minister Tony Blair and Home Secretary David Blunkett said the move was designed to put victims first. An order detailing the plans, which include widening the offences covered, was laid in Parliament on Monday. Human rights campaigners say the changes are dangerous and "guaranteed" to cause miscarriages of justice. At present, juries are rarely told if the accused has previous convictions for fear of hindering a fair trial. Sarah Payne The proposal will have to be approved by both Houses of parliament. Cases where the law could have been applied in the past include the trial of Roy Whiting, who abducted and murdered eight-year-old schoolgirl Sarah Payne in July 2000. The killer had a previous conviction for the abduction and indecent assault of a nine-year-old girl in June 1995. The jury in the Roy Whiting case did not hear of his record But the jury in the Sarah Payne trial did not hear the details until they had reached a verdict. Mr Blunkett said the reforms put victims "at the heart of the justice system". 'Search for truth' He said: "Trials should be a search for the truth and juries should be trusted with all the relevant evidence available to help them to reach proper and fair decisions. "The law has recognised for over a century that evidence of a defendant's previous convictions and other misconduct may be admitted in some circumstances. "But the current rules are confusing and difficult to apply, and can mean that evidence of previous misconduct that seems clearly relevant is still excluded from court. "The categories I have introduced today - and further categories to be introduced in the future - will give judges clear guidance in applying the bad character provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 in particular areas of offending." 'Real misery' Mr Blair said the change would help protect the rights of victims while convicting the guilty. He said: "It's designed to make it clear that we're not going to have people playing the system and getting away with criminal offences that cause real misery." Just because someone has committed an offence in the past doesn't mean they have committed the current one Mark Leech Under the 2003 Act, judges will have discretion to allow bad character evidence - previous convictions - to be revealed from mid-December. In most cases, details of convictions must be "strikingly similar" to the new allegations. But Monday's order means that in child sex abuse and theft trials, the level of similarity between past offences and current charges can be lower. The Home Office says the onus will be on making the information known. 'Miscarriages of justice' Barry Hugill, spokesman for human rights group Liberty, said: "With the best will in the world, most jurors would find it very difficult not to be influenced by admission of previous convictions. "That means you would be trying someone not for their alleged crime but for the those previous crimes. "It's guaranteed that it will lead to miscarriages of justice." Mark Leech, editor of the Prisons Handbook and founder of ex-offenders charity Unlock, said: "These new rules are dangerous and ill-thought-through. "Just because someone has committed an offence in the past doesn't mean they have committed the current one, and it could have a dangerous snowball effect. "What happens when a previous conviction is taken into account in a later trial and leads to a conviction, only for the earlier conviction to be later quashed because it was unsafe - where does that leave the later conviction?"

Surely if this makes a difference, then it shows that juries are swayed by whether the defendant has done it before. Surely the important thing is getting to the truth, not seeing justice as someone doing time for it whether they did it or not. As it stands, the judge has the right to know of any previous convictions before sentencing. Also, I think that with rape cases, the defendant should not be named until he is actually found guilty, as there have been cases where the women have openly lied about it, and mud sticks.

I agree about rape cases.... it's awful that the guy gets tarred before he's even found guilty.... there was a case recently when an ex-girlfriend of a chap cried rape as her current boyfriend found out that she had seen him!! DISGUSTING!!

personally I don't think ANYONE should be named before a conviction is gained. As for the jury knowing about previous convictions... I'm torn on this one, need to think about it some more.

I agree..... INNOCENT until proven guilty and all that!! I too struggle with the previous as it's hard to know if someone is setting someone else up just because they can!!

I have a friend who was on a jury over two years ago. They were trying a man accused of indecent assault on girls aged 12-14. The man's barrister painted him as a pillar of the community, married with children and grandchildren. The girls came from, shall we say the poorer side of town. The jury found him not guilty. Then it was revealed that the man had a string of convictions for similar offences going back years. My friend is still suffering from stress and having counselling, she dreads that she will have to do jury service again. When they are relevant past offences should be disclosed to the jury. Do gooders in Liberty and other Human Rights groups think only of defending the rights of the villain. They suck. Let's think about the innocent victims for a change, Bernie.

Bernard, are you saying that if his past had been known, then the verdict could have gone the other way? It is the evidence that should determine whether a person is guilty or not, and not whether he is married, single, a pillar of the community or has done it before. I am certainly not taking villains` side, but it is just as tragic when an innocent person is found guilty as it is for the victims of such attrocities. When that happens, the real guilty person is still on the streets, free to carry on the evil deeds.

I am comletely against this. The trial should be on the evidence of the case. Not previouse history. If this knowledge would swing the verdict either the prosecution have not done their job or the accused should have been locked up for earlier offences anyway. hence not been at liberty to commit a further offence. Bob PS I fully agree with anonymity until found guilty. whatever the charge.

I am torn on this one . I will always remember doing Jury service at 18. Tha accused was what i can only describe as a stereotype of a villain. In build he could be a boxer or nightclub bouncer, with a scar on his cheek and a broken nose! As a jury we were terrified of judging him by his appearance and i suspect we were over cautious. We found him not guilty of theft but guilty of handling stolen goods. When he was sentenced the judge was not pleased - i think the police had felt it was an open and shut case. His previous convictions were read out in court - they covered an A4 sheet of paper !! ( and included armed robbery and GBH !) Personally i dont think there was enough evidence to find him guilty but i often wonder what would have happened if we were forewarned ??

Agree with Bob. It also seems that this will apply to other crimes in the future, not just child sex abuse and theft, I guess government thinks this is a 'way in'. Every person has a right to a fair trial, based on evidence for that crime alone. I'm not on the side of the criminal and feel that victim support is often inadequate, but this, in my opinion, won't help the judicial process.

There is the potential for a miscarriage of justice whatever is known or not known. The jury system is intended to be ordinary men and women trusted to weigh the evidence and reach a reasonable conclusion. For the most part I think it works well and it has always irked me that so much seemingly relevant information can be excluded from trials. There is an argument for really complicated tax and fraud trials to be dealt with by something other than the jury system, but I think that for the most part, the more information the better and juries can and should be trusted to do their jobs. A person's character and past behaviour does and should influence the 'reasonable doubt' factor.

I know most of you will not agree with my opinion, but here goes: The law is based, quite rightly, on the principle that you are innocent until proven guilty. Another principle is that it is up to the prosecution to prove the case, beyond all reasonable doubt. So far, so good, I'll go along with that. However, there is another principle which the leeches, (whoops, sorry), legal profession, are fond of quoting, that it is better for ten guilty persons to go free than one innocent person be found guilty. This is what I do not agree with, in an age when thugs, yobs, murderers and paedophiles seem to have more rights than the Queen. I believe, especially in the case of paedophiles, that it is acceptable that occasionally one innocent person is wrongly convicted rather than ten people with convictions as long as your arm are set free to offend again and again. There is no cure for paedophiles other than death. Put it this way: The innocent man we jail may be innocent of the crime for which he is accused, BUT HE HAS BEEN FOUND GUILTY OF SIMILAR CRIMES IN THE PAST. If we let ten guilty paedophiles go free, then at least ten innocent children will be abused in the future. Sorry if I offend, but in my eyes the true innocents are more important than the guilty.

Sorry to disagree, But I repeat my earlier statment. If these people are at large after several previouse offences then this is a defect in the sentencing and parole procedures. It should not be put right by a jury at the next offence. Life should mean life, not 5 to 10 years. I would not support capital punishment but I do belive that the prisoner should be able to deside how long his life sentence will be. So help him commit suicide and save everyones taxes. Bob

Bob, I must agree.... Life is life....