Evidence of Bad Character in Criminal ... - Law Commission

square brackets; this tended to occur in the highest rated categories. In
interpreting the table it should be remembered that a previous conviction for
handling stolen goods was used both as a similar conviction to the same charge
and as a dissimilar offence where indecent assault was charged, whereas indecent
assault was only used as a similar offence.
No information
A.20 Where no information was given about the defendant’s previous convictions, the
magistrates were asked how many convictions they assumed the defendant had.
Just over half the respondents (55.2%) thought that the defendant would have
one or two convictions and a further 14% thought that the defendant had more
convictions. Around a third (31%) assumed the defendant had no previous
convictions.
Other aspects of magistrates’ impressions of the defendant
A.21 Magistrates viewed defendants with a conviction for section 18 assault as more
deserving of punishment and more likely to have got away with criminal offences
in the past than all other categories. This was seen as the most relevant conviction
in terms of employment of the defendant, more so than a dishonesty offence,
except where the job involved caring for children where the indecent assault
convictions produced worse scores.
FUTURE OFFENCES
A.22 Magistrates were asked to assess the likelihood that the defendant would commit
various offences in the future. These offences included those used as previous
convictions and currently charged, plus some offences with common attributes
(burglary, robbery with violence, indecent exposure to children and rape).
A.23 Those with a previous conviction for section 18 assault were seen as more likely
than others to commit offences of burglary, robbery with violence, section 18
assault and, second only to the defendant with a previous conviction for
handling, handling stolen goods. However, this defendant was regarded as least
likely to commit a sexual offence.
A.24 A previous conviction for indecently assaulting a child made the defendant
perceived as more likely to commit sexual offences or intentionally cause
grievous bodily harm, but not commit burglary, handling stolen goods or
robbery. The Jury Study found that such a conviction produced a consistent
statistically significant increase in the likelihood of the defendant committing all
other offences, but this was not the view of magistrates.
A.25 These results suggest that dishonesty, violence and sexual offending are seen as
significant components of offences likely to be repeated. It is perceived that a
previous conviction for one offence with such a component makes it more likely
that other offences with the same component will be committed by that
defendant.
246