Letters to the Editor

REALITY HITS JURORS

James Morton's article seems not to have anticipated that members of juries may actually read the Gazette (see [2002] Gazette, 22 August, 22).

As someone who has served on a jury I can assure you that one or two of us do indeed 'think'.

I fully agree that proper research into the opinion of jurors could only result in more effective trials.

My personal experience was that the 'junior' barristers were generally fairly inept, and that the prosecution case was poorly presented.

Whether the responsibility for that should rest more with the Crown Prosecution Service than with the barrister I do not know.

The issue here from my experience is that if a juror is asked to expect a high standard of proof then it is a high standard of proof which must be presented.

In my small experience there were numerous gaps that left doubt, which could only result in one possible decision.

Furthermore, I found one aspect of the system extremely frustrating.

As foreman of one jury, I was told by the judge that even though he, the witness, and both barristers had access to a written statement, we could not see it because it had been presented to us in oral evidence.

That is patently absurd since we were supposed to be the sole arbiters of fact in that case.

I suggest that if one looks at other pages in the Gazette one will see that that this is not the only example of those who plan our judicial system being somewhat out of touch with reality.

Kevin Hannigan, practice manager, Pearson Maddin, New Malden, Surrey

PROFESSIONAL APPROACH

James Morton worries that juror QCs will inevitably know the barristers representing both prosecution and defence.

(see [2002] Gazette, 22 August, 22).

His article assumes that all QCs, all prosecutors, and all defence advocates are barristers.

Of course, this is wrong in each respect.

And all of us, barristers and solicitors alike, are well used to finding friends and colleagues as opponents on one day and, for example, sitting as holders of part-time judicial office on another - and to behaving professionally in these circumstances.

Julia Holman, training/media officer, Solicitors Association of Higher Court Advocates

COSTLY REMINDER

In this age of the costs negotiator, it is easy to forget how straightforward and civilised dealing with costs used to be.

I was reminded of the contrast recently involving two claims where I submitted details of costs four weeks ago.

Unusually, one of the insurers allowed the solicitor who had conduct of the defence to deal with the costs negotiations and we have now agreed a reasonable settlement.

On the other claim, the costs have been referred elsewhere - and I have only just been told who will actually be dealing with these costs.

When they propose making an offer is not yet clear.

Martin Curnow, Jane Loveday, Launceston, Cornwall

MDPs RAISE CONCERNS

I see there is to be another push towards multi-disciplinary partnerships.

But surely Enron and other scandals have demonstrated that the conflicts of business interests that can arise in such situations do more harm than good.

The move now should be to avoid putting different professional services together, for there are many situations in which Enron-type pressures could arise that would not occur if two separate businesses were dealing with their separate aspects.

For example, sellers of mortgages and associated financial products could lean on their conveyancing colleagues in the same company not to question the small print on the mortgage documents.

RA Humble-Smith, Neville-Jones & Co, Swanage, Dorset

WORD GAMES

Lord Woolf appears to be suggesting that the seemingly confusing phrase 'pro bono' may be deterring solicitors from carrying out such work (see [2002] Gazette, 8 August, 5).

He may be right, and once this apparently complex phraseology is clarified, many solicitors who were previously bewildered by this baffling term may then rush to offer their services free of charge.

However, they may well find that if they have struggled with that initial aspect, the law itself will be a minefield.

Stephen Hattersley, Branton Edwards, Manchester

ACCIDENTAL TOUCH

I note your recent article headed 'Unenforceable' CFAs escalate costs chaos' (see [2002] Gazette, 22 August, 1).

Lord Woolf also seeks a name for pro bono work.

How about 'Accident Group scheme'?

Simon Gibbs, negotiations manager, Legal Costs Negotiators, London E1