Should juries be told about defendant's record?

STANDING in the dock accused of rape yesterday, John Ellison looked the pillar of society with his smart suit and his respectful stance.

The 12 jury members did not know he had already been cleared of two rapes and convicted in the past for assaulting a woman.

According to Vera Baird, Redcar and Cleveland MP and human rights barrister, a criminal justice White Paper due out in July is likely to contain reforms on mentioning previous convictions.

Presently, previous convictions can only be mentioned by the prosecution in specific circumstances.

The Law Commission, the independent body which recommends reform to the Government, has published a report which says prejudicial evidence should be admissible "if it is relevant to a specific issue in the case" and its value in proving an aspect of the case outweighs the risk of it prejudicing the jury against the defendant. If the law on previous convictions is changed it will add to a House of Lords ruling in June 2000, which stated that previous acquittals for rape could be mentioned before a trial if the facts of the current case were similar to evidence in the acquittals.

If the law is changed it could mean more rape victims would come forward.

A recent report revealed that only 7.25 per cent of rape cases reported to the police resulted in an offender being sentenced.

Alisdair Gillespie, senior lecturer in criminal justice at Teesside University, said it was easier to see why previous convictions might be mentioned.

He said: "Obviously, it is something you have been convicted of, but I think there is a danger from a human rights point of view with regard to acquittals."

But Roger Bingham, a spokesman for campaign group Liberty, said supplying previous convictions meant jurors were far more likely to convict on likelihood rather than proven fact.

"You don't convict someone for being probably guilty or being the type of person who probably could have done it," he said.