Edward White in his letter (see [2004] Gazette, 4 November, 16) suspects that many lawyers will write to complain that the sky will fall in once bad character provisions are enacted.


I do not make such a claim, but simply wish him and others who might support his view to ponder on the views of the Law Commission, an independent body of fine jurists charged with examining law reform, when it reported on the very same issue.


It said: 'Not all evidence of bad character is relevant to the issue of guilt. The admission of irrelevant bad character evidence might not matter if it were not prejudicial; but often it is. It can lead to a person being convicted on inadequate evidence, or where the fact-finders are not in fact sure that the charge has been made out.


'Bad character evidence which is not relevant should in our view be excluded as a matter of course, not merely as a matter of discretion.'


Regrettably, the Criminal Justice Act 2003 did nothing at all to redress these concerns, and come 15 December 2004 anyone with previous convictions risks being tried on their past behaviour as opposed to evidence indicating guilt of present alleged offending; no falling skies, but many appeals at taxpayers' expense.



Andrew Keogh, Tuckers, Manchester