LEE MERRY

IN A RECENT letter to this newspaper, the writer declared emphatically that trial by jury is 'a disservice to justice.' The basis for the assertion, in a nutshell, was that jurors are fickle mortals who are more often than not 'bamboozled' by skilful defence attorneys. According to the writer, they also fail to adhere to guidance on the law given to them by judges, either because of their general lack of intelligence or an inability to control their inherent biases.

These observations cannot be discarded outright. Similar arguments have been posited for decades by those critical of the jury system. But while there are strong arguments that can be made in favour of abolition, there are equally strong arguments against the suggested alternative - judge-only trials.

Judges have their own biases. The beauty of the jury system is that jurors are required to deliberate and exchange their ideas on the case, which ought to lead to the consideration of different perspectives. The single judge considers only their own perspective. Thus, there is arguably a higher risk that an inherent bias (conscious or unconscious) will be dominant and affect the outcome of a case.

Judges are "brought up" in the legal system. They start out as attorneys and must work in the legal profession for many years before being appointed to the bench. In a small country it is inevitable that judicial officers will form connections with certain attorneys, or certain groups of attorneys, while they are in practice.

Equally, judges are likely to form bonds with attorneys who appear before them regularly over a lengthy period of time. There is nothing alarming about this, it is human nature. There is, however, a risk that judges will subconsciously allow these relationships to affect their conduct of the case. Jurors on the other hand have no connection to the legal system or the attorneys who appear in their cases.

Judges are trained to give the correct decision in law. This does not necessarily equate to the just decision. "Jury nullification" is the name given to the decision of a jury to acquit a defendant who is guilty in law on the basis that their conscience requires them to do so. This power is firmly established and the jury cannot be punished for passing an "incorrect" verdict.

In the US in the 1800s, juries in the north consistently refused to convict people charged with harbouring slaves contrary to the Fugitive Slave Act. In Canada, Henry Morgentaler was acquitted at various trials in the 1970s and 1980s on charges of operating an abortion clinic.

In a recent example in the UK, four men were acquitted of the offence of criminal damage for toppling the statue of a historic slave trader, Edward Colston, during a Black Lives Matter protest in Bristol in 2020. In each case the jury's decision was decried by the respective government, but courts have consistently defended the juror's right to follow his conscience.

The jury system therefore acts as an important check on state overreach.

By far the most impo