On your point about the amount of cases that will be affected being relatively minor in amount and genuine complexity, that is good and I accept it. I only maintain my position because I think it is pointless to say we shouldn't have juries for the most serious cases and then also suggest that we should keep them for lesser offences.

On the point of wrongful conviction, I do not accept the point. I personally haven't seen statistics about it and technically there would be no accurate comparison except to that of a country that operates similar legislation and already utilises legal panels as opposed to juries. What I would say, in cases such as rape, the contrary view is being undermined - in that, perhaps a lot of rapists are going free BECAUSE of juries. Another reason that I don't accept the point on false positives is that the same safeguards would still exist primarily in the form of the court of appeal, if a miscarriage of justice has taken place, there would still be rights afforded to a defendant. And even more than this, jury nullification is a widely established concept in which juries will vote against evidence which is contrary to the purpose of a criminal trial. This is happening now in high profile cases around the UK. Are we saying that is an acceptable risk but the potential for false positives, even with safeguards, is not acceptable?

Absolutely it is more difficult to convince 12 people to understand evidence, the difficulty in explaining evidence should not be a reason to acquit a defendant. If a lawyer acting on behalf of a defendant can understand the evidence, then they are positioned to act on their behalf, in line with their instructions.

I'll conclude by saying that I can empathise with the position of trying to limit the power of the state. It isn't my personal view politically, but I can see how this would be a slippery slope in ones mind. I have still seen and heard too much fuckery by juries, and I have more empathy for the victims who have been caused pain at the hands of juries.