Christopher J. Buckley

It’s Sunday evening, and i’ve started to watch The Verdict, the BBC’s much trumped ‘legal reality’ series. Already, i’m going to switch off.

When the jury was sent for a recess after the prosecutions opening address, the judge failed to advise them to not discuss the case either between themselves or any outside parties under any circumstances. Discussing a case with fellow jurors until instructed to by the presiding Judge is a serious issue, and one which can cause a mis-trial to be (rightfully) ordered.

Blonde air-head Jennifer Ellison has already been captured flippantly stating, ‘I believe they’re guilty’.. Even more troubling, Jeffrey Archer who, for those unaware, holds a conviction for perjury and perverting the course of justice, is seen pontificating about the victims ‘claims’. You’d have thought someone with his legal ‘experience’ would know better. Already, the (now retired) judge has failed in his duties towards both the defendants and the prosecution. Further still, the BBC commentator has disclosed that there is no one to ‘represent’ the victim in this case. That is simply not-true. The police are able to provide liaison officers to support victims, and there is no instruction that prohibits a solicitor being able to represent the victim(s) interests. BBC, you should and must do better!

The first ten minutes, only strongly re-enforces my belief that there is very good cause for a juries’ deliberations to be disclosed. One wishes that (the fictional) Justice John Deed was over-seeing this trial, though as both a High and Appeal Court judge, it would be unusual for him to become involved in such a case.

UPDATE: The jury reached Not Guilty verdicts on all counts. Based upon the evidence presented, I feel this was the right judgement. What niggles me is that the victim clearly suffered, but is now accused of being a liar. No winners really :(