Juries are supposed to represent the ordinary man who exercises common sense and good judgement. It is therefore illogical for lawyers to suggest that anything should be withheld from them as they make their decision (see [2005] Gazette, 10 February, 16). The jury system is either up to the job or it is not.


These arguments are just the sort of thing that give lawyers a reputation for breathtaking and unthinking arrogance. The argument seems to go thus: yes we must have juries, but we must also edit what they hear because they are not as clever as lawyers and we do not want to confuse the the poor dears.


This approach is also rather defeatist. It is supposed to be a jury of one's peers after all. For all we know, Stephen Baggott's hypothetical defendant might consist of 12 kindred souls, all keen to know the full story so that they can quickly reach a verdict and go home to enjoy a bit of what they fancy.



John Wilson, Wilsons, Leeds