Should a criminals past count against them?

The integrity of the judiciary is an enshrined principle of England’s century’s old legal system, which requires criminal trials to be fair, just and transparent. Juries, therefore, ought to be reasoned and unbiased, whilst barristers, judges and solicitors are duty-bound to uphold the rule of law. Criminal defence lawyers for firms such as Burton Copeland, however, might encounter difficulties if changes are made to allow a criminal’s past to count against them in court.

The issue of drawing attention to the previous convictions or offences of a person charged with a new crime was highlighted a number of years ago following the trial of Barry George, who killed BBC television presenter, Jill Dando. George’s previous conviction for attempted rape was deemed inadmissible under the doctrine that a jury ought not to be made aware of a criminal’s past unless absolutely necessary, but what constitutes necessary in the circumstances?

As with so many other issues, the debate balances two conflicting aspects of criminal justice – the desire to secure a conviction and the requirement to uphold the defendant’s right to a fair trial. The principle of disclosing as little information as necessary to the jury was established because it was seen as the only way to ensure that the defendant would receive a fair trial.

It is important to note that a defendant who has been charged with a criminal offence is not guilty until they has been convicted of that offence. Whilst few members of the jury would disagree with the ‘innocent until proven guilty’ principle, even fewer would be able to uphold it if they were aware of a defendant’s previous convictions.

Burton Copeland and other eminent criminal defence firms would argue that a defendant’s previous convictions should have no influence on any new, unrelated trial. After all, why should a defendant’s previous conviction for attempted rape make any difference to a case involving murder? Unless describing a clear, discrete pattern of behaviour, to suggest that previous convictions and current trials are in some way connected undermines the very basis upon which the English legal system has evolved. Crucially, it all but precludes the possibility of a fair trial.