Suppression orders !

This week a man charged with murdering his fiancee by throwing her to her death from a high rise balcony was found guilty by a judge.   What was unusual about this case was that the accused elected to be tried before a judge rather than face the verdict of a jury.

It is the custom of our law system to suppress any record of previous criminal activity from being presented to the court hearing the evidence relating to the crime for which the accused is charged.   The trial procedure requires those involved to only consider the facts relating to the charge laid and in most cases the accused presents his or her version of the events - and this requires those sitting in judgement to make a decision as to whether they accept or reject that version.

It seems ironic that such a judgement is kept entirely devoid of the character history of the accused when they assess the conflict between what the accused claims to be the facts, and the evidence that the prosecution puts forward.

Now that a verdict has been delivered, the media is free to publish what was suppressed at the trial, and we learn that this convicted person once bit the ear of an arresting police officer, has engaged in selling cocaine and was previously convicted of brutally attacking a man held defenceless by others.   He led a lavish lifestyle and this was not supported by any form of fiscal record.

This case was a decision  between two issues.   The prosecution claimed that  in a fit or rage the accused carried the victim to the rail and threw her to her death.   He claimed she climbed over the rail, slipped and fell to her death by accident.    There was evidence of violent arguments between the pair and that he had a " controlling personality " .    His fiancee was in the process of leaving the relationship and returning to Canada.

The issue of suppressing earlier criminal history is certainly argumentative.   In this case the accused probably made a mistake to elect to be tried before a judge rather than rely on the decision of a jury.   It stands to reason that judges usually are interested in other cases going through the courts and may well have been aware of this mans previous history.   A jury would most certainly have that screened from their knowledge when making a decision on which version of events to believe.    Discord from even one juror would have led to acquittal.
Suppression order falls into disrepute when a high profile case leads to acquittal - and then the media is filled with a lurid past history that was hidden from the jury.    That jury has been tasked with deciding the truth or otherwise of the accused - without being given the tools we usually use to decide on a persons character.

It seems that suppression is a price the prosecution pays when the law implements that " Innocent until proven guilty " requirement !