Channel 4’s ‘The Trial: A Murder in the Family’, a drama-documentary that aims to reveal the inner workings of the British legal system, depicts a fictional murder case tried in a real court by real-life legal professionals and a jury of 12 members of the public. The Trial follows the workings of a criminal trial, with speeches, the calling of evidence and the cross examination of witnesses.
As the show progresses, Corker Binning have been writing a blog series – which can be accessed here – providing legal analysis on each episode of The Trial the day after it is aired. Danielle Reece-Greenhalgh spoke with RadioTimes, following last night’s final episode.
It’s an interesting idea: was The Trial constructed in such a way to demonstrate failings in the jury system? Was it made to show jurors are afraid of convicting guilty men?
Some trained lawyers expected a not guilty verdict. “It had some flaws, but I think the defence introduced enough alternatives, doubt and suspicion that the jury would not be sure of guilt,” Danielle Reece-Greenhalgh, an Associate at leading criminal law firm Corker Binning, told RadioTimes.com.
Some viewers spotted shots of Simon Davis reading notes at home and munching on a sandwich outside, but would he have to be locked up when court wasn’t in session?
Not necessarily. “Whilst it is more difficult for a defendant in a murder case to be granted bail and therefore be allowed to freely walk in and out of court, it’s certainly not unheard of,” says Reece-Greenhalgh.
Could Simon Davis really have consulted with his lawyers after taking the stand?
Simon would not be allowed to consult with his barristers while giving evidence on the stand – even if he did it over a number of days, confirms Reece-Greenhalgh.
Not only has The Trial given us a fascinating look at how the jury operate outside the courtroom, but inside too. We’ve seen jurors nodding to each other, staring suggestively and even there’s even been a gasp or two. Would that be typical courtroom behaviour?
Yes, it’s completely normal, according to Reece-Greenhalgh: “I think that juries do get animated. They do react to pieces of evidence – especially in a case like this. They suddenly realise they’re a player in the process.”
Read the full article in RadioTimes here.
Andrew Smith and Tasha Benkhadra write for Law Society Gazette on Russian sanctions
August 15 2022
Jessica Parker writes for Law360 on HMRC’s fraud charge against Bernie Ecclestone
August 3 2022
Corker Binning moves to 1 Ely Place
July 19 2022