The Trial of Sir Thomas More (1535)

[Erik Narramore]

Then I thank God that it's of no more relevance how it looks in your eyes, than it is in my own. It's also a relief that there weren't more on the jury who, like you, believed him guilty in FACT, but innocent in Law. I see such as resulting in wholesale LawlessNESS.

That's the law.  What you call lawlessness is actually how the law works, or rather, how the law is supposed to work.

The lawlessness is actually in your position.  To paraphrase Sir Thomas More at his famous trial of 1535, depicted in Robert Bolt's play, A Man for All Seasons, you would 'cut down every law to get at the Devil'.

What the real Thomas More actually said was:

"If the parties will at my hands call for justice, then, all were it my father stood on the one side, and the devil on the other, his cause being good, the devil should have right."

You have got everything the wrong way round.  You have appointed Jeremy Bamber as the Devil and you are cutting down every law to go after him.  The law exists to protect liberty against power - of the state, and yes, against the malignancy of criminals too.  But we can't sacrifice the law to go after criminals.

Can I respectfully suggest you re-read the words of Sir Frederick Geoffrey Lawrence, Q.C., defence counsel to Dr. John Bodkin Adams in R v Adams, a famous 1957 case.

"Justice is of paramount consideration here, and the only way in which this can be done is for you to judge the matter on what you have heard in this court and in this court only.

What you read in the papers, what you hear in the train, what you hear in the cafés and restaurants, what your friends and relations come and tell you; rumour, gossip, all the rest of it, may be so wrong.

The possibility of guilt is not enough, suspicion is not enough, probability is not enough, likelihood is not. A criminal matter is not a question of balancing probabilities and deciding in favour of a probability.

If the accusation is not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the man accused in the dock, then by law he is entitled to be acquitted, because that is the way our rules work.

It is no concession to given him the benefit of the doubt. He is entitled by law to a verdict of not guilty."

Source: R v Adams [1957]

My thread on those words is here: https://jeremybamberdiscussionforum.com/index.php?topic=293.0

In my view, the words of Sir Frederick Geoffrey Lawrence, Q.C., should be required reading for every person appointed as a juror in England & Wales.  You, especially, Jane need to study and consider those words.