police interviews

[badcompany]

if the jury finds out about your convictions during a trial due to someones slip up,they have to change the jury so they are not biased against you right? but what would happen if for some reason you mentioned your criminal record at the police interview? because the way i see it the police interview tape is evidence and has to be disclosed to the jury,but at the same time if it is used,could'nt the person on trial if convicted use this to their benefit at an appeal saying they were biased because of the police tape? has this ever happened before?

[Rollo]

I can't see why that would happen.

You are not obliged to say anything in a police interview. If you do say something that might be prejudicial to your case then more fool you!

[badcompany]

rollo,but what im saying is in the fairness of justice and all that,would it still be admissable?

[R1Geezer]

and they wouldn't be biased anyway, they'd have he information they need to do a true character evaluation. However they are the rules so Juries do not get to know about form.

[Barmaid]

Unlikely to have happened unless the Crown had made a bad character application. If it did happen, it would be for the Defence to apply to have the jury discharged. If it was nothing significant the Jury could continue with appropriate summing up by the Judge.

If you mentioned your previous in an IUC, the tape would be edited (and the edited version agreed with the Defence) before it was played to the Jury.

[sara3]

under the rules of disclosure, certain exhibits can be marked "senstive", or likely to undermine the prosecution or defence.

you need some legal advice if you think you're in trouble..

[Buenchico]

Your question is based upon the false assumption that the jury have access to the interview tapes. In practice the Crown Prosecution Service barrister will normally only quote very brief abstracts from the transcripts of the tapes. He/she will take care not to use any abstracts that either refer directly to previous offences or infer that any other offences may have been committed (unless the defendant is also on trial for such alleged offences at the same time).

The defendant (or, more usually, his/her defence team) is always provided with copies of the tapes. The defence barrister could choose to use further abstracts (possibly to show that the CPS evidence was taken out of context) or even to insist that the jury hears all of the tapes (possibly to show that the defendant was put under unreasonable pressure during the interviews). However it's extremely unlikely that this would happen, especially if the interviews referred to previous convictions.

If the defendant (or his defence team) were to refer to his/her previous convictions in court (either directly or by introducing the full interview tapes into evidence) there would be no breach of court procedures and thus no reason for the judge to halt the trial.

As your post suggests, the CPS can't normally make reference to any previous convictions without causing the trial to be abandoned. However, when the defendant's previous convictions indicate a proclivity to commit the type of offence with which he/she is currently charged, the CPS can seek the permission of the court to disclose those previous convictions to the jury. Such applications are often made when a defendant is charged with sexual offences but they're now becoming increasingly common for (alleged) crimes of dishonesty and violence.

Chris

[badcompany]

cheers peeps! no im not in trouble,but its just something i wondered about.

buenchico,its a pity that its not mandatory for those noncey sex offender scum!

[New Judge]

Yes, a great pity.

But the "noncey sex offender scum" you refer to are not defined as such until they have been convicted. And to achieve that conviction the prosecutor has to stick to the same rules as if he were prosecuting a fine upstanding speeding motorist or drink driver.

All a bit of a nuisance, I know, but that's the way it is.

[oldmaggie]

A giveaway in Magistrates court is the defence solicitor who says when summing up at a trial " my client has no convictions.." or " my client has never appeared in court" or " my client is of good character"