Rule 35 states that a barrister must not ask a prosecution witness about what?

• A. A barrister who knows or suspects that the prosecution is unaware of the client's previous conviction must not ask a prosecution witness whether there are previous convictions, in the hope of a negative answer
• B. A barrister may freely ask witnesses about any prior convictions
• C. A barrister must reveal the client's prior convictions to the court
• D. A barrister should only ask about past convictions in private meetings

Answer: (A)

The idea being tested is that a barrister must not engage in a tactic known as sandbagging—trying to trip up the prosecution by having a prosecution witness reveal the client’s prior convictions—when the barrister knows or suspects the prosecution is unaware of those convictions. The rule targets this specific scenario to prevent unfair surprise and manipulation of the witness or the jury. If the defence asks a prosecution witness about prior convictions only to prompt a negative answer that the prosecution didn’t know about, it undermines the fairness of the trial and can mislead the court. That is why this is not allowed.

The other options don’t fit because they describe broad permissiveness or different duties that aren’t what Rule 35 addresses. Asking about any prior convictions freely ignores the protection against unfair surprise. Requiring disclosure to the court contradicts standard privacy and strategic considerations, and restricting questions to private meetings changes the venue rather than the conduct being prohibited.