ATTORNEY-General Jarrod Bleijie said he was "prepared to look at" allowing juries to hear the relevant past offences committed by defendants.

"There is no doubt that these contemporary, and some may say controversial reforms, would require a large mind shift of those practising in criminal law in Queensland,’’ Mr Bleijie said.

"These are certainly issues I am prepared to look at and I support the Chief Justice raising these topics.

"Allowing for criminal histories to be made available to juries, allowing Judges to explain the concept of reasonable doubt and requiring defence counsel to disclose their case prior to the commencement of a trial, some could argue, would allow for greater transparency in criminal trials.

"I am happy to work with the Chief Justice as we now debate these possible law reform issues.’’

Earlier, Australian Council for Civil Liberties president Terry O'Gorman says any such move would be dangerous.

"(Justice De Jersey's) proposals are radical and will lead to miscarriage of justice," Mr O'Gorman said today.

"These are the sorts of comments you'd expect to hear from a law-and-order politician. They are surprising coming from a chief judge."

Mr O'Gorman said it was unreasonable to expect juries to hear of someone's criminal history, and then be able to put it out of their minds and focus on the case before them.

"Human behaviour being what it is, when a jury hears a person has a previous conviction, a bewigged figure sitting loftily on a a bench saying take not notice of that defies reality.

"A jury can't get it out of their head."

He said that in relation to sexual offences, judges already had the liberty to tell jurors about previous convictions if there were "striking similarities".

Earlier, it was reported that Queensland Chief Justice Paul de Jersey will argue the public is smart enough to hear the truth in court about relevant past offences.

Justice de Jersey will tell the legal community at the Queensland Law Society Symposium to embrace beneficial change and "not mindlessly shelter behind tradition".

"Why . . . should a jury be denied knowledge that an alleged rapist committed another rape six months earlier . . . or that an accused charged with fraud has a string of convictions for dishonesty?

Do you think a criminal's past should be revealed? Tell us below

"While I acknowledge the contrary position, many would argue common sense and general life experience would militate in favour of not keeping a jury in the dark about such matters.

"I trust the intelligence and wisdom of my fellow citizens. I do not accept a claim that, made aware of prior misconduct, jurors would automatically say: 'He did that so he must have done this.'

No state or territory in Australia allows this practice.

PARTY GAMES: Ides of March rumour mill has Gallery chooks running wild

Pointing to courts in the UK, which for the past decade have had the discretion to admit evidence of an accused's prior convictions for similar offending, Justice de Jersey suggested Queensland's legal system should consider further reforms, including:

That judges be able to explain to juries what "reasonable doubt" is.

Forcing defence lawyers to reveal their tactics before a trial starts, which happens in Victoria and is being considered by NSW.

Justice de Jersey said forcing the defence to reveal tactics could lead to more guilty pleas, faster trials and help tackle court backlogs.

The Courier-Mail has previously reported on concerns over the backlog of criminal cases clogging the state's legal system.

Some of the biggest cases, including that of Brett Peter Cowan, who has been committed to stand trial for the murder of Daniel Morcombe, could take years to proceed.

"I surmise that in this jurisdiction, were that level of pre-trial frankness obligatory, we would see fewer trials and more pleas of guilty . . ." he said.

"A criminal proceeding should not in this 21st century amount to a game where the players may keep their cards up their sleeves."

Justice de Jersey also said he was disturbed by research showing many juries did not understand the meaning of proof beyond reasonable doubt, and legislation may be needed to address this.

He also raised other reforms embraced by the UK, including allowing trial judges to comment to juries and admitting hearsay into evidence if appropriate.

"I have little doubt that as the years, or maybe decades roll on, we will here in Queensland be urged to embrace reforms which have been in operation, effectively, in that great basin of legal tradition, the United Kingdom, now for a decade or more," the Chief Justice said.

- with AAP