You be the judge

BBC1 1 March, 9pm

In the week that the nature and quality of the BBC’s programming came under the spotlight, its main channel brought us ‘You be the judge’, effectively a public service version of the US show ‘Judge Judy’.


The hour-long prime-time live programme showcased three civil cases in a relatively glitzy manner in front of a big studio audience. The law was explained by a resident solicitor, the cases were argued by unrobed barristers and the decision made by the public, with all parties agreeing to be bound by the telephone vote announced in a further show after the ten o’clock news.


For lawyers the spectacle may have been a little unedifying, but the practitioners involved – for all that they seemed a little uneasy under the studio lights – say there is value in exposing the law to the public view in this way.


Niall Quinn, a highly experienced criminal law solicitor-advocate and partner at Bedfordshire and Northamptonshire firm Woodfines, was the on-screen legal adviser, explaining the underlying legal principles in each case to the presenter, ‘DIY SOS’ frontman Nick Knowles.


Mr Quinn says he was contacted to be on the show just five days earlier; he had originally screen-tested some weeks before to be one of the advocates, only for the producers to decide solely to use barristers. However, a late switch was made to have a lawyer explaining the law, rather than Mr Knowles, and Mr Quinn was drafted in.


He originally came to the attention of the producers in a typically roundabout manner – one of the production team was a friend of the daughter of one of his partners. That partner did not want to be involved, but suggested Mr Quinn, and he had to spend the weekend running through the cases and what he would say. Mr Quinn says he found the filming process ‘fascinating’, explaining that it took nine hours of rehearsal to produce one hour of live programming.


The producers apparently had trouble finding cases and it showed. There were three in all: a dispute between a music promoter and a heavy metal band (going by the cuddly name of Axis of Evil) that he had booked, over paying for damage the group had caused to a venue and a counterclaim for their unpaid fee; a custody battle over a pet snake between two former cohabitees; and a question of whether a country pub should ban smoking.


The first was the most interesting as it was given the most time; the other two were visibly curtailed, presumably as time was running out. After a film had set the scene and Mr Quinn had given a quick lesson on unwritten contracts, barristers Simon Pentol of 3 Gray’s Inn Square for the promoter and Kirsty Brimelow of 187 Fleet Street for ‘Big John’, Axis of Evil’s lead singer, were each given five minutes to cross-examine and call witnesses.


In a particularly nerve-racking test, a poll of the studio audience was taken before and after the advocacy in this case. Although she had by far the harder argument, Ms Brimelow managed to close the gap, which she confesses to the Gazette was a big relief. ‘I’d feared it would go down to 2%,’ she says.


She cut the proportion of the audience backing the promoter’s case from 69% to 58%, arguing vigorously that any promoter might expect a heavy metal band called Axis of Evil to behave a little worse than, say, Dido – especially if he left a large quantity of alcohol for them in the dressing room.


The figure went back up to 66% in the telephone vote and Ms Brimelow suggests that this may indicate the impact of witnessing advocacy first-hand.


The producers came to Ms Brimelow through a mention of her in a women’s magazine and she says the barristers took the case seriously. Each had a conference with their client and told the production company what witnesses they wanted. ‘It was done very professionally,’ she says. ‘It was obviously entertainment but it was meant to be slightly serious too.’


The snake case was a good opportunity to explain some of the principles behind post-divorce decisions relating to children, as Mr Quinn highlighted a recent case where a court ruled on which partner should have the pet dogs in the same way as it would for children, rather than treating them as chattels.


However, the barristers in this case – Elizabeth Selman of 1 King’s Bench Walk and Sally Dent of 1 Pump Court – were only given three minutes to present their arguments. Even then, it was pretty clear who should win and post-break-up custodian Helen Gay, who confessed to loving her pet snake Marley and playing him Bob Marley songs while he fed on dead mice, easily won.


The final case was more an issue of public policy than the law – as Mr Quinn pithily put it, ‘my gaff, my rules’.



Tim Kevan of 1 Temple Gardens argued fluently for a complete smoking ban in the pub – he was the only one of the seven lawyers who spoke without referring to notes – while well-known Lincoln Crawford of 12 King’s Bench Walk, who by contrast seemed the least fluent and most nervous, put the case for a ban in certain rooms only.


Both audience and public voted 52% in favour of a partial ban, which Mr Kevan said he found encouraging, suggesting it would have been higher a few years ago.


Mr Quinn says there was clearly a serious point underlying the entertainment. ‘The show represents a great opportunity to explain to people their legal rights, legal obligations and the general process of the law,’ he says. And at a time when trial by jury is under attack, ‘it vindicates people’s proper ability to form a judgement on evidence’, he insists, saying that the public jury got each decision right.


Ms Brimelow maintains that ‘it wasn’t a trivial thing to do’, especially ‘if it made barristers seem more human’.


It is now up to the BBC to decide whether to commission a series of ‘You be the judge’, when the format could hopefully be improved. Both Mr Quinn and Ms Brimelow, having tasted life on screen, say they would be keen to be involved if it is.


Whether or not this happens, one lesson that could be taken and applied more widely is the brevity with which the advocates had to express themselves. Ms Brimelow explains that they had voices in their ears counting down how much time they had left to speak. Now that really could be in the public interest.