I wholeheartedly agree with Edward White (see [2004] Gazette, 4 November, 16) concerning the use of a defendant's previous convictions.


The prosecuting authority has enough to do without the need to gather evidence against people who are clearly guilty. Even if a previously convicted burglar hasn't committed the crime under consideration, he will certainly have committed another one and so there will be no injustice. The burglar who committed the crime under consideration will inevitably be convicted of something else under the same rule, ergo, the correct number of convictions will ensue from a given number of offences and public justice will be satisfied.



The police could then largely return to ensuring the smooth flow of traffic safely within the speed limits, and the Crown Prosecution Service would be largely disbanded as prosecutions will more appropriately be dealt with by police inspectors as in the good old days.


Juries and, indeed, courts, would become obsolete. The conviction process would be administrative and the sentencing, with the present ludicrous invention of mitigation done away with, could be taken on by the home secretary himself as there appears to he little enough pleasure in his life at the moment.


I feel sure that Mr White can already envisage a method of awarding first convictions, presumably to persons from recognised family and educational backgrounds, to ensure a constant flow of villains for the process.



John Gardiner, Rothera Dowson, Nottingham