Firstly that is insulting to jurors, because it suggest that they ignore the directions given to them. She has not said that jurors do that in other cases. Why? Secondly, but much more importantly, there is no “evidence.”

The only way one could get “evidence” would be to sit in during a jury’s deliberations, or interview jurors afterwards, which, I assume the Justice Secretary knows are criminal offences. I assume that the “evidence” to which she refers are conclusions from mock trials. Such conclusions are speculation and, hopefully, the Justice Secretary knows the difference between the two.

If not, it would be useful for her to inform herself, instead of doing what she accuses jurors of doing – relying on myths.

Douglas Cusine
Retired sheriff