Good evening chairperson, ladies and gentlemen.

Tonight, we are debating the topic, that juries

should be informed of the complete criminal
histories of people on trial. We, on the
affirmative team strongly believe, that by
allowing juries to have the complete and
unadulterated criminal history of those on trial,
that a fairer and more legally just decision can be
reached by the jury, as my team will go on later to
elaborate on. Tonight, we define the topic as: that

juries should be informed of the complete
criminal histories (any convictions on a criminal
record) of people on trial (any magnitude of
criminal offence e.g. anything from murder to
drink driving). Our model for tonight is quite
simple, we believe that all past convictions can be
shown in court, but judge can "veto" the evidence
under his existing legal jurisdiction - that is he can
instruct members of a jury disregard either the
evidence presented, as he can do the same with
any other evidence. Tonight, we will be

presenting our case through a social/individual
split. I will be speaking on the social side
outlining two main points: 1.1 Role of the
government to ensure justice and 1.2 To ensure
a more just and fair trial. Now onto my first issue
for tonight, Role of the government to ensure
justice.

Ladies and gentlemen, tonight our case is very
simple. We wish to improve a flawed and belated
legal system; one that simply fails to give
defendants a fair an accurate trial. We believe that
it is the role of our government to ensure that we
have a fair and just legal system that does not
prejudice or advantage any party. Firstly, it is
important to establish the parameters that govern
this topic. In Australia, the criminal justice system
exists to determine whether or not an accused
party is guilty, acquitted or not-guilty, judged by a




jury of their peers. Juries are designed in essence,
to defend the common man from the powers of
the state. In Queensland are almost only used for
criminal trials and are extremely rare in any other
cases for instance, civil trials. This fact will
become important later in the debate, as
prominent criminal case examples within this
state and abroad, prove the legitimacy of our
model for this evening. At present, under the
status quo in Queensland, our legal justice system
withholds the prior convictions of a criminal on
trial, unless the event is deemed to be innately
linked to the crime committed, or the prosecution
can only give direct evidence of the accused's
character under cross-examination, if the accused
has raised the matter. For example, it becomes
due process, that if someone being trialed for
arson has a series of previous arson offences or
prior convictions relating to destruction of
property, then these facts should become viable
evidence in the case against the defendant to be
interpreted under the jurors discretion. With this
in mind, ladies and gentlemen, our model for
tonight calls upon direct action from the State and
Federal governments to include all prior
convictions and the complete criminal histories of
the accused, which will not only greatly improve
the efficiency of the legal system, but also the
legitimacy of the trial. Specifically, this means
adopting similar overseas models (in countries
such as the US and Britain), where the complete
criminal histories of accused criminals are used to
demonstrate Habit Evidence. By definition, it is
any evidence submitted for the purpose of proving
that a person habitually acts in a certain way, this
will be relevant to the way in which he or she
might have acted on a particular occasion. This
needs to be proven by extensive instances that
render it habit, whilst also occurring in similar
circumstances that make it comparable to the
crime being currently trialed. If this system was to
be introduced into the Australian legal system,
then not only would we avoid the recurring


problem of prosecutors using character evidence
and criminal records to detriment a witness, but
we would be, by the definition of legislation,
ensuring a fair trial for the accused by ensuring
that all facts are known to the jury from the outset.
This leads me on to my second issue for tonight, a
more just and fair trial. Tonight, we believe that
by giving jurors all of the prior convictions
(including previous convictions and patterns of
crime) against the person in question, then this
can give a more balanced and legally informed
decision, as to whether or not the evidence relates
directly to the case and acts in favor or against the
defendant. By this I mean, instead of withholding
prior convictions that could prove character
evidence, habit or part of circumstantial evidence
all possibly pivotal sections of the accuseds
case it is within the publics best interests and
part of the governments responsibility, that we
give full jurisdiction to our peers that compose
the jury, while removing red-tape and allowing
the judge to act as a truly neutral mediator. The
point of a trial is to use evidence in order to pass
judgment on someone in a fair manner, thus it is
the logically extension of this idea to display all
evidence to the jury. It is in our most firm belief
that a criminal justice system, which currently
relies on the ability of the jury to make a decision,
cannot legitimately choose to withhold evidence
from them without innately biasing the trial itself.
Under the existing status quo, the lines between
relevance and irrelevance of prior convictions
are extremely blurred subjected to the vaguely
worded legislation that permits its use, whilst also
being exposed to the will of the judge presiding
over the case. For example, as part of a national
study looking at the impacts of social media on
the court system, the Australias Standing
Council on Law and Justice, which includes law
and media academics from Bond, Monash,
Griffith and UTS, found that over a 12 year
period in the US, at least 90 verdicts were
challenged due to jury internet misconduct with
21 retrials or overturned verdicts in 2009 and
2010 alone. Our model tonight, reflects the
position of the UK governments White Paper,
when it states that, we want less evidence to be
withheld from the courts all relevant evidence
should be admissible magistrates, judges and
juries have the common sense to evaluate relevant
evidence and should be trusted to do so. If we
cannot trust juries to decide which evidence is
relevant to the verdict and which is not, then the
entire use of juries in the criminal justice system
should be reconsidered. Simply, as the
affirmative team tonight, we aim to give a
streamlined and simple approach for jurors, one
which permits all evidence to be viable in the
decision making process, unless the court
determines that its prejudicial effect exceeds its
probative value.