Disclosure of past convictions is a step too far, say MPs

Solicitors and campaigners have this week called on the government to take heed of a home affairs select committee report on the controversial Criminal Justice Bill, which warned that the legislation would shift the system too far in favour of the state.

The report slated a number of the plans, including forcing disclosure of the names of defence witnesses and extending the maximum detention for non-serious arrestable offences, but most adamantly opposed disclosure of past convictions.

Committee chairman Chris Mullin said: 'It is a bridge too far and I hope the government can be persuaded to drop it.'

The committee also suggested additions to the Bill, including a ban on payments to witnesses in criminal cases and the extension of the right to anonymity for defendants accused of sexual offences.

Rodney Warren, director of the Criminal Law Solicitors Association and chairman of the Law Society's access to justice committee, was disappointed that the report backed restrictions on jury trial, but particularly welcomed the recommendation that public funding be extended to appeals before charge.

'No one will be surprised that there are parts which we don't quite agree with, but on the whole we are pleased that the suggestions and safeguards we put to the committee in evidence have been carefully listened to,' he said.

A Law Society spokeswoman said: 'We are pleased the home affairs select committee acknowledged so many of our concerns - in particular our concerns over the proposals to admit previous convictions routinely - and we urge the government to respond positively to the committee's advice.'

Legal Action Group policy officer Nony Ardill said the government should now amend the Bill without delay.

'LAG is worried by many features of the Criminal Justice Bill, but the clauses on bad character evidence probably concern us the most,' she explained.

'The committee must be congratulated for coming down firmly against these proposals.'

Paula Rohan