tennis coach cleared of rape

[colin]

just read that a tennis coach has been cleared of raping a 15 year old girl, but had already admitted 6 charges of unlawful sex with a minor. of course the jury was not told of these admissions, and when told after their verdict were shocked.
it raises the question again of whether juries should be told of previous offences or admissions awaiting sentence.

[Peter]

The thing is, how much attention would a juror pay to the evidence if they knew the defendant had 176 previous convictions for the same offence?

The rozzers would just go and nick the most likely suspect, know the jury would convict on past offences.

[jj]

"This country would be a disaster if Joe Public was allowed to decide on how the criminal justice system should work".
Instead of which we have the disaster we already have, with lawyers deciding? I'm no fan of knee-jerk justice, but the legal profession seems hell-bent (with government help) on destroying its own credibility.

[Pervert]

Having said all that, the sex life of the alleged victim seems to be fair game for the defending counsel. Portraying her as a slag is (or certainly used to be) permissable, but the slightest allusion to the poor, precious wee soul in the dock is verbotten.

There was a case up here a year or two back where the accused was carrying out his own defence, which allowed him to question his victim (he was found guilty, and had quite a record for similar offences) in detail about what she "claimed" he had done to her. Bad enough having a stranger questioning you about such an attack, but the perpetrator ....

Thankfully the law was changed shortly after to prevent such a situation.

[jj]

What worries me about this is that it seems to go hand in glove with the govt's plans to abolish Double Jeopardy- I can't understand the logic that says the accused is to stand trial for what he's rumoured to have done (or has in the distant past been convicted of) generally, rather than solely for the offence of which he is curently charged.
With DJ there are already provisions for retrial if sufficiently convincing new evidence comes to light, so what's the point other than yet another knee-jerk Blankwit reaction to public concern about acquittal rates?

[Pervert]

Apologies. I know there are safeguards within the law for the benefit of the innocent. Sometimes, knowing that the guilty (and I'm not relying on tabloid justice here for my info) have used those safeguards to con a jury and get off, aided and abetted by a smart brief, tends to bring out the inner Nazi in me.

The presumption of innocence is a corner stone of the legal system. With some crimes and some criminals, it's difficult to keep that at the forefront of your mind.