All professions are conspiracies against the laity. The jury asked for more information than the lawyers were giving them. The judge was quite right to stop the case; not because the juror thought he was Henry Fonda, but because the professionals had done a poor job.

Terry Hamblin, Bournemouth, Dorset

As the late Lord Hailsham once famously said on TV, "under our adversarial system, British justice isn't interested in getting at the truth, only in obtaining a conviction." Let's hope this juror starts a trend whereby prosecution cases are held up to more rigorous scrutiny.

K Philips, London, UK

John Scott, London,

Rules John, that was the real problem. The damn jurer broke the rules and actually asked a few questions. We can't have the jury thinking for themselves can we , they have to be told what to think by the legal profession.

Morse, Oxford,

the juror was foolish. It is the job to the police to investigate crimes, that of the prosecution to present evidence deemed to be admissible and that of the jury to decide guilt based on the facts presented to them. Wild cards do no assist justice, they defeat it.

Roger Lorton, Nongprue, Thailand

Quick article rewrite:
A man given partial responsibility over the judgement of another who was unknown to him, to be proved by methods unfamiliar to him also by strangers, was discharged of his duty after finding out too much information.
Recall the central phrasing: THE WHOLE TRUTH. Big laughs.

Angela, Norwich, England

Sir Roy Meadows gave 'expert' evidence on a flawed (basic) understanding of statistics that neither learned counsel nor be-wigged judge were capable of challenging. Courts are not about truth or justice simply a farcical game played by those who can present the best.

Eddie Reader, birmingham, england

We have seen what happens when we trust barristers and judges to run trials -- unsafe convictions.

Only a minority of the population has less knowledge of science than barristers and judges.

Keith S, Winnipeg, Canada

In such cases the trial Judge ought to be able to make a costs order directly gainst the offending Juror. Why should we pay for his stupidity?

Stuart , Bristol, UK

Is there a reason why the jury weren't told some of the evidence? Sounds to me like this juror was doing the right thing.

Mike, Bristol,

Good for the juror!
It's interesting how the Powers That Be react when Joe Public stops being a merely passive, deferential, obedient, tax-paying milch-cow, isn't it?
I wouldn't take anything a bunch of lawyers said at face value, either!

Brian Clacey, Croydon, UK

Well done juror? The accused ran away because he was scared? Duur,ok George. Even if your caught on camera nowadays chances are you'd get away with it. Jurys are a waste of time and money.

john, Liverpool, U.K.

With the many TV programmes regarding investigations and evidence, gone are the days where people take things at just face value and do not question the evidence presented by the prosecution.
If CPS had done its job properly the evidence would have been watertight, the charge changed or dropped.

P Barrett, Valletta, Malta

I too salute the jurer who went to the trouble to inform himself of all aspects of the case before him. Else he would have been obliged to rely upon the evidence of prosecution 'experts' whose careers are dependent on securing conviction Some have been shown to be little better than charlatans

Kevan Taylor, Brighton, England

Barbara, how can you be sure that the juror told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? What checks were in place to ensure he was a) independent, b) competent, and c) thorough? We have a trial system for a reason, but of course, you and the juror in question know better.

Steve, Altrincham,

So how would FATHER BROWN, MISS MARPLE, SHERLOCK HOLMES, all fair in C21st then ?

ian payne, walsall,

Legal procedings should not be 'sweeties for the legal profession' (judges,barristers, court clerks) but should reveal the truth and produce justice..

They don't.

There is no justice in the UK.

The juror should be applauded and the pick-an-mix barristers' 'evidence' looked carefully into.

Charlotte Peters Rock, Knutsford, England

Strictly speaking to call the juror an "amateur" sleuth is technically correct, but like John Scott it implies ineptitude and lack of intelligence, common sense or a sense of justice these things not the exclusive preserve of so called "experts". Justice appears to be a rare commodity these days.

Peter Butterworth, Rochdale,

The Judge said he would have directed the jury to return not guilty verdics if the case had continued as the evidence offered by the crown was insufficient thankfully a miscarriage of justice was prevented and one should ask why the case was ever brought.

Neil Robinson, Coxhoe, durham

THe weakess link is not the jury but the prejudice of the judge

Keith, Pontypridd, UK

Lawyers and judges seem to want people to make decisions yet will not allow them to ask anything that helps them in making the the decision. This all seems rather self serving to protect the income of lawyers arguing through advocacy alone. If you want my opinion give me the right to be informed.

Mark Hayes-Newington, Thame,

Don't police officers and solicitors sit on juries now. Surely with their knowledge they can influence a jury that they are sitting on? So why don't judges stop those trials with juries made up of those with knowledge of the law?

martin jones, Chippenham,

Barbara

Juries are denied lots of information. They are not allowed to know enough about people who make allegations. Juries should have sight of their antecedent and quite often, relevant sexual history.

Jo Morris, london, uk

Barbara Holloway: Stop watching American court room dramas. You clearly have absolutely no understanding of the English Legal system.

C Griffiths, London, UK

How can the CPS say there is enough evidence for trial, the defence argues there is not, the judge agrees, trial over! how about letting the jury decide on the evidence available and arguments from the prosecution and defence. I am the nephew of the taxi driver and I am sickened at the law

Brian Quigley , Gateshead, UK

So many successful appeals against improper forensic evidence beggars belief how the defendants were convicted in the first place and does nothing to ensure that we have a fair legal system. This "best fit" approach by the police of evidence to possible suspects further damages their credibility.

Tony Griffin, London,

The jury system is a poor way of determining the facts. Most people are very error prone when considering evidence . The jury's main task should be to decide on sentence, within limits, as community representatives. Of course this is one power the lawyers do not want the jury to have.

Peter Mckenna, Liverpool,

Perhaps we ought to swap roles in the courtroom:

As a quick fix, the judge could decide the verdict and the jury pronounce the sentence. Better still - the jury should interview the witnesses.

Pity that jurors aren't given the most important evidence - the defendant's previous record

Alan, Rushden, UK

Nevertheless, the "self-misinforming juror" appears to have carried out a more thorough investigation than the police could be bothered with.

Martin, Newmarket, Suffolk

peoples distrust of what they are told by authorities, ie prosecution and the police is now at meltdown level.So much deceit and malpractice has now got to the level where the prosecution evidence is now lies until proven otherwise.

Kevin, london, England

Ah, the delights of the self-misinforming juror: no cross-examination; no specialist knowledge of technical subjects and no regard to the rules of evidence which ensure a fair trial. The judge did the right thing.

John Scott, London,

The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
This, the most fundamental and important tool of any civilized society, seems to have all but disappeared from our present legal system. I applaud anyone who seeks it out so that proper justice can be done. Well done juror!

Barbara Holloway, Chelmsford, UK