Rhetoric on 'Reasonable Doubt' and Blackstone's Ratio

[Erik Narramore]

The following passage is from the closing speech of Sir Frederick Geoffrey Lawrence, Q.C., defence counsel to Dr. John Bodkin Adams in R v Adams, a 1957 case.

Dr. Adams was acquitted.  This passage sums up my approach here on this Forum.  I would go as far as to say that these words should be shown to every person asked to undertake jury service in this country:

"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 give him the benefit of the doubt. He is entitled by law to a verdict of not guilty."

Source: R v Adams [1957]

[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]

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.

[Erik Narramore]

I have to say, I do find it much easier to put Sheila in the crime scene than Jeremy - and that is quite worrying.

This is why we have these fail-safes in the system, which are summarised in the closing speech of Sir Frederick Geoffrey Lawrence, Q.C., defence counsel in R v Adams, quoted above.

Those among the dogmatic guilt camp who sneer at the 'reasonable doubt' approach should reflect on which of the following two dilemmas they would prefer:

(i). a probable mass murderer walks free because the case against him cannot be proved to the necessary standard;
OR
(ii). having to live with the small but reasonable possibility, constantly nagging at the honest part of your conscience, that an innocent man has spent the last 35 years in prison.

I know my answer.  For me, it's Blackstone's ratio every time.  You don't lock people up without proof.  Due process is a necessary fire wall.

If a guilty Jeremy had been acquitted in 1986, Fate or karma (or whatever you call it) would have caught up with him sooner or later.  Probably he would have squandered away the estates or lost it all in litigation with the family.  He may well have been caught out by the law due to his involvement in drugs.  He would always have been looking over his shoulder.  Protections against double jeopardy were also weakened due to the Stephen Lawrence case, and if Essex Police had retained all the evidence and had it DNA-tested during the 1990s, an acquitted Jeremy might well have faced a re-trial.

[Erik Narramore]

Rumpole - The Golden Thread:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ua9QU6RjGcg

[Erik Narramore]

Oh, you're very welcome QC - anytime! Odd that you also think he's guilty but would be happy for him to walk. So kind of you, I am sure he appreciates it. Alway good to welcome a fence sitter that fights his corner!!

Thanks Caroline.  Every time you post, you confirm my impression of you: as somebody who has a need to take a side, it doesn't matter which, as long as you can be a member of a tribe and hurl contempt and vitriol at the 'other side'.  You allow yourself one heterodoxy: that the silencer wasn't used, yet you still think he should stay in prison because, after all, you know he is guilty.  You are 100% sure.  How you can be so sure is a mystery.

I'm not a 'fence sitter'.  That's just a term of abuse for somebody who thinks.  In this case, we don't know the truth.  Jeremy Bamber possibly does, but if he is innocent, then even he doesn't necessarily know.  That being the case, I start from the presumption of innocence.  I acknowledge that there is evidence pointing to Jeremy and I personally think him to be guilty, but the law requires the case to be proved - for a number of good reasons - and besides, I just don't know and I am humble enough to admit it.

It's honest and decent to admit that you don't know and look honestly and objectively at evidence, instead of going round pretending you know things you don't and sneering at people who are honest enough to accept their limitations and ask questions.