Under British and Australian criminal procedure, juries are shielded from a defendant's prior convictions to ensure impartial verdicts. I disagree with proposals to disclose full criminal histories, because such information would distort fact-finding and undermine the presumption of innocence. Decisions should rest on evidence of the charged offence, not character judgements derived from the past.

First, knowledge of previous offences creates a powerful risk of prejudice. Jurors may unconsciously infer guilt from patterns, lowering the standard of proof and encouraging propensity reasoning. For example, awareness of earlier thefts could sway interpretation of ambiguous evidence in a burglary trial, leading to convictions based on reputation rather than reliable testimony.

Second, fairness is already protected through controlled mechanisms that balance relevance and justice. Judges can admit limited prior facts when directly probative, such as to establish intent or rebut coincidence, while excluding material that merely inflames bias. Expanding disclosure to juries would weaken these safeguards and invite appeals over unfair trials.

Overall, withholding criminal records better secures impartial deliberation and public confidence in verdicts. While past behaviour can be relevant in narrow circumstances, routine disclosure would prejudice decision-making and erode the presumption of innocence. Therefore, the current practice should be retained, with judicial discretion providing the necessary balance.