|
Allegations of abuse
by NZ Police |
|
|
peterellis
Home / police allegations / Rickards,
Shipton, Schollum vs Jane Doe Page 4 - Initial Reaction to
Not Guilty Verdict |
|
|
Juries should not be allowed to
know about a person's previous convictions in order to ensure a fair trial,
says a legal expert. "If they did know [about
previous convictions] they may be completely adversely influenced by the
convictions and not the evidence in front of them," said barrister Peter
Winter, who specialises in criminal law and is the past president of the
Criminal Bar Association of New Zealand. "The whole issue is a fair
trial. In relation to that, it's really important the jury focus on the
evidence in front of them, not things that may have happened in the past, the
circumstances of which are not known - just the convictions. There's a very
strong chance they will focus on the convictions, not the actual evidence. That's
the rationale behind it." He said it was an excellent rule.
"I think that without that, people will invariably believe if they are
convicted, that they were convicted not on the evidence but on what may have
happened in the past." He said that
could lead to people feeling they had been punished twice for something they
might not have done. "So it's important to look at it from the
perspective of the person who is accused as well as the overall
picture," he said. "It's a very sound rule. It's
a rule that is long-standing and there's a lot of wisdom behind it. The whole
point of the system is to be fair and to try and safeguard against wrongful
convictions." He said it was important jurors were not prejudiced in any
way when they considered a case in front of them. "What they really need to
concentrate on is the evidence that's put before them." He said previous convictions were
of importance in sentencing. "If there has been a previous
conviction for [a similar] type of offending, chances are the sentencing will
be much more severe." High-profile Auckland barrister
Kit Toogood, QC, told NZPA there was nothing wrong with a jury being allowed
to know defendants had previously been proved innocent, but not that they had
been previously found guilty. "In the great majority of cases the fact
that somebody has been convicted or acquitted on an earlier occasion is
completely irrelevant. "It happens more often that
you'd think, but [other cases] just don't get the publicity. "Each case must be judged on
its own merits according to the interests of justice, but particularly the
interests of justice so far as the accused are concerned. "There's nothing about this
that suggests the rules need to be reviewed." Nor were similarities between the
three cases involving Shipton and Schollum so compelling that a jury needed
to know of the parallels, Mr Toogood said. "If they were so similar that
the similarities amounted to compelling and cogent evidence of guilt, then
the court could have admitted them. "There's a strict test for
admitting that sort of evidence." However, retired barrister and top
criminal defence QC Kevin Ryan said it was time the law was changed to allow
juries to be informed of an accused person's criminal past so they could
properly evaluate the defendant's character. "Too much is made about the
protection of the accused and nothing about the defendant," he said. "I feel the law needs to be
changed. The jury should hear everything - not just part of the truth. The
balancing act which the jury have to do means all matters should be put
before the jury so they can evaluate the character of the accused. "The two defendants in this
case [Shipton and Schollum] were clearly savage. "It's just a personal view
and I have been criticised for this before." |
