While not taking issue with the abolition of the rule that lawyers may not serve on juries, it is flying in the face of reality to expect them not to give themselves away once chosen for service (see [2005] Gazette, 10 November, 37).

Years of training and experience as a member of the legal profession cannot be simply discarded, as questions of the veracity of defendants and witnesses has to be sifted by minds that have been taught carefully to consider the cogency of the evidence put forward by the respective advocates. In addition, there is the ability to interpret the wording of an offence, the source of which may originate in common law, often since codified in statute and honed by case law.


How many 'private citizens' bring to jury service the requisite depth of legal knowledge of exactly what must be proven to safely convict, an insight into the keen and sadly too often misunderstood difference between the burden and standard of proof, and the possible range of sentences that are available to the court?


Hence, the luckless lawyer, called on to do his legal duty, is unlikely to be treated as an equal member by the other jurors, whether or not his profession is outed. Indeed, there will be scant need for any such pronouncement once deliberations are under way, unless the lawyer purposely plays down his intrinsic understanding of the whole process so as to hide his status.


Such a decision would surely not be in the best interests of the accused who, were he to be made aware of the composition of the panel entrusted with his right either to walk free or face a term of incarceration, would doubtless welcome the recent addition to the categories of eligible constituents of this historically robust part of our criminal justice system.


Any lawyer worth the name may also not be able to resist commenting on a decision of the judge during the course of a trial, unless he is willing to negate the very essence of his professional being. In any event, what is the justification for this 'ordinary member' of a jury not being permitted to take issue on such directions if others are free to raise them within the hallowed confines of the jury room?


The judge has the final say on questions of law and the conduct of the trial, but lawyers cannot on the one hand be expected to be mindful of the rules and yet at the same time don the false mantle of lay person when being asked to switch roles for the duration of the trial.


Bill Jackson, Nottingham