As the latest contribution to the John Grisham pension fund - Runaway Jury - heads for UK cinemas, life is set partially to imitate art at the Court of Appeal in London.

The film tells the story of a juror and an accomplice who attempt to manipulate the result of a trial.

At the Royal Courts of Justice, judges will be asked to interview jury members to ascertain whether the alleged hankerings of a jury forewoman for a prosecution silk could have unfairly influenced the verdict in a serious fraud trail.

The film will probably make a lot of money; the appeal could make legal history.

Both the film and the appeal case illustrate our fascination with the workings and deliberations of juries.

That mystique is even stronger in the UK than it is in the US.

American jurors are routinely leapt on the moment their verdicts are handed down by journalists hungry for comment.

Juries are also big business in the US, with much work going into jury selection and consultants helping lawyers select the best juries.

In the UK, the sanctity of the jury room has remained unbreached.

Should the principle continue that juries are allowed to come to their decisions effectively without any post-verdict scrutiny? Historically, it has been maintained that jurors would feel pressured by the prospect of having to justify their decisions, and that pressure could lead to unfair results.

But it could be argued that there should be some middle ground between having no insight into jury decision making, and the apparent free-for-all that exists in the US, where in some high- profile cases the jurors themselves risk being awarded celebrity status.

One imagines the Court of Appeal would be reluctant to extend the cult of celebrity to jury members in this country, but perhaps there's a film in it yet.