Sir, Charles Bazlington (letter, July 22) included in his suggested checklist for jurors, a column for “. . . what the judge thinks are the significant points . . .” in the case.

This reflects the procedure in English courts, where the fact-finding role of the jury is effectively usurped by judges who trespass into territory that, in jurisdictions such as the US, is forbidden. There is no logical reason for judges to sum up the facts of a case; the jury have been there and can decide the facts for themselves. Juries should be trusted to do so free from the judicial urge to revisit former glories as they bathe in the glory of their own advocacy.

Leonard Smith, QC
London EC4

Sir, The advice to jurors to write notes during a case on a sheet of paper divided into three columns echoes the advice which I was given as a barrister many years ago by one of our most eminent QCs.

Rejecting my carefully crafted note on a case, he told me to rule my notebook into three columns spread across two pages. The first column, he said, should be very narrow and should be headed “Facts”. The second should be narrower still and should be headed “Law”. The third column should occupy the whole of the rest of the space, and be headed “Prejudice”.

Andrew Bano
London SW19

Explore Letters

• Feedback