I am a solicitor in private practice. I no longer do any criminal work but when I was younger I undertook criminal defence work on a daily basis. I also prosecuted cases (for the Department of Social Security).


I well remember once defending an old lag in the magistrates' court on a charge of stealing scrap metal. It emerged accidentally during the cross- examination of a police officer that the defendant had a long list of previous convictions for theft.



The magistrates were reluctant to continue the hearing and invited me to apply for a new trial. I consulted my client and we decided to continue and to place our trust in the fair-mindedness of the magistrates. My client was acquitted.



The unspoken assumption behind the opposition to the introduction of evidence about previous convictions is that whereas judges and lawyers can be trusted to treat this information dispassionately, ordinary members of the public who sit on juries cannot. This attitude seems to me to be both arrogant and unfair.



There are cases where the evidence against the defendant is strong but the defendant's good character is just enough to persuade a jury to acquit, whereas a known propensity to commit that type of offence would be sufficient to persuade a jury to convict. If a case is weak, I do not believe a jury will convict simply because the defendant has committed similar offences in the past.



In my view this is a question of trust. If we trust juries to decide cases in a fair-minded way we should trust them with all relevant information rather than keeping some of it from them. If we do not trust juries to be fair-minded, we should do away with jury trials.



Douglas Metcalfe, Whitfield Hallam Goodall, Batley, West Yorkshire