In the last four weeks we have seen a couple of high profile cases involving jury trial.
The first took place near Neverland and involved the world's favourite entertainer. The exonerated defendant has vowed never to share his bed with young boys again and perhaps, given the questionable nature of some of the evidence given on behalf of the prosecution, justice was eventually done.
What I found fascinating was to watch the interview which the jurors gave after the verdict. Something we wouldn't allow to happen here. It was plain that the experts for the defence who vetted the jurors' psychological profiles found some allies.
One particular comment stood out. One of the female jurors didn't like the attitude of the prosecution's principal witness, Gavin Arviso's mother, and as she explained afterwards, "I thought, don't you snap your fingers at me lady". This witness ' s demeanour and behaviour upset the juror and caused her not to trust the evidence she was hearing. The juror behaved as a human being and formed a view. This is one of the reasons why I am in favour of juries.
The second case involved our own national hero, Gary Lineker. He and the Daily Telegraph found themselves
in the dock for being a bit rude about a footballer and his very reasonably priced agent. The footballer said he had been made to look like a "knave" and in the end, the civil jury were unable to agree on anything. The case has now been settled out of court but more importantly to me, the jury had their say. By failing to reach a verdict they directly influenced the ultimate outcome.
Juries can be traced back to the Magna Carta in 1215. Some even claim the Saxons invented them in the second century. Ether way the principle is that a jury can judge the justice of the law. It is the people's opportunity to hold laws invalid that are in their opinion unjust or oppressive.
The jury system is the final check and balance against any Government. Without this system there is no route open to ordinary people to express their views and make a difference.
Shame then isn't it that our current legal and political masters want to abolish the jury system for certain types of fraud trials on the grounds of cost. Fraud cases can be long-winded and difficult to understand for lay people.
The real reason I would suggest that juries are unpopular for these cases is that they have a tendency to acquit more often than the prosecution find acceptable. My view is that we should preserve our jury system in its entirety.
A jury might not always get it right but I would prefer to know that if I was facing a serious charge for anything, ordinary people would be allowed to have a say on the evidence. You simply can't trust the machine of the State to reflect what its own citizens perceive to be fair.
* Nigel Wood is senior partner at Birmingham law firm the Wilkes Partnership.
