A mate of mine did jury service a couple of years ago, and the defendant was accused of 2 counts of child sex.
The Crown Prosecution Service lawyer looked as if he was fresh out of law school, and it seemed as if he'd only picked up the papers for this case 10 minutes before entering the court.
On the other hand the defendant's barrister was superb, and tore the CPS lawyer and most of the witnesses to shreds.
My mate's view was that the defendant, who was a businessman with a couple successful of companies, was 'dodgy' despite the fact that the CPS lawyer had not managed to land any meaningful 'blows' on him. He stated this in the jury room, but there were several sticklers who said that while they were uncertain about his character, on the basis of what they'd seen in court there was no basis for conviction.
The arguments raged for 2 days, and the judge finally agreed to accept a 10-2 majority verdict of Guilty
After this was read out in court, a list of 19 previous convictions of the same sort of offence by the defendant was read out.
Dave was incensed as they'd come perilously close to acquitting a serial sex pest due to the ineptitude of the CPS lawyer.
While I accept in most cases that 'innocent until proven guilty' is definitely correct, and that there are some instances where previous of criminals who have genuinely reformed, in the case of repeating offenders using the same MO, surely the jury having no inkling as to previous 'form' leaves the jury system open to abuse?