Peers reject character evidence

Peers say plans make a mockery of the presumption of innocence

Plans to allow juries to be told about defendants' previous convictions and "bad character" have been defeated in the House of Lords.

Conservative and Liberal Democrat peers backed an amendment rejecting the proposals - contained in the controversial Criminal Justice Bill - by 182 votes to 111, a majority of 71.

The government has suffered a series of defeats over the bill - peers have already thrown out plans to restrict the right to jury trial in complex fraud trials and where there is a risk of jury "nobbling".

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 Lord Kingsland

During report stage debate of the bill on Tuesday, ministers argued that evidence of bad character should be generally included in trials subject to a judge's discretion, but Tories favoured excluding this.

Home Office Minister Baroness Scotland denied the proposal would lead to a defendant "being damned by their past".

'Appropriate' measure

"This is not about securing convictions at the expense of the rights of defendants," she said.

"Clear safeguards have been built into the scheme to ensure the burden of proof continues to rest on the prosecution and that trials are conducted fairly.

"This is about ensuring the rules are clear and facilitate the admission of evidence of previous offending or other misconduct, where it is appropriate and safe to do so."

In an apparent concession to peers, Lady Scotland said the government was prepared to consider whether defendants should be formally notified that their previous record might be used in evidence.

This would allow them to apply to the judge for that evidence to be excluded.

Faith in juries

But Tory shadow Lord Chancellor Lord Kingsland said the measures made "a complete mockery" of the presumption of innocence.

"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."

Our proposals on bad character and previous convictions demonstrate the absolute faith we have in juries Paul Goggins Home Office Minister

After the vote, Home Office Minister Paul Goggins argued that justice would not be done if offenders were not convicted because evidence "that could have been heard is not admitted in court".

"Far from attacking jury trial, as we are being accused, our proposals on bad character and previous convictions demonstrate the absolute faith we have in juries," he said.

He accused the Tories and Lib Dems of saying one thing, but meaning another.

"They say they trust juries, but don't trust them enough to hear all the evidence available," he said.

"Their proposals make it far easier for defendants to attack victims' and witnesses' characters whilst shielding their own record."