Independent-minded jurors can make court proceedings a trial for prosecutors, a top defence lawyer said yesterday.

For modern jurors are more likely to take their own view of evidence despite end-of-evidence directions by judges, explained Delroy Duncan, of Hamilton law firm Trott and Duncan.

He said: "Academic lawyers who study the jury system say the jury is a barometer of what the the public feels is right and wrong and that -- although jurors are admonished to follow the legal directions they are given by a judge -- oftentimes they bring to the court their own sense of right and wrong, which is a common sense idea of what's right and wrong from everyday life.

Mr. Duncan added: "What I would say is that this not a charter for lawyers or juries not to follow the law or the directions which they are given by judges.

"But it's a realistic assessment of a situation which sometimes arises when the law and the sense of what is right and wrong in any particular case clashes.'' Mr. Duncan was speaking after a special Commission of Inquiry into the running of the Bermuda Police drugs squad rose.

Mr. Duncan, who represented ex-detective Lendrea Davis, whose allegations about colleagues sparked the inquiry, gave evidence to the three-man Commission.

He told the Commissioners that there had been a disquieting number of acquittals in Supreme Court cases which, at least on the surface, appeared to be straightforward.

And he told the Commissioners that both Labour and Home Affairs Minister Quinton Edness and Police Commissioner Colin Coxall had said jurors did not appear to be taking their responsibilities seriously.

He said that juries' views of their responsibilities and a tendency to do what they thought was right and disregarded the law -- while it could not be condoned -- was real and happened and had been given a name, jury nullification, by academics.

Yesterday, he said he had become aware of the academic study while attending courses run by the Association of Trial Lawyers of America several years ago.

He added: "In the US, it's not considered a problem but lawyers are trained through the Association to be clearly aware of the odd case which will come up where it's clear that there is a conflict between the law and the manner in which the evidence is being presented and the quality of evidence.

"The Association have courses which deal with how lawyers must, on the one hand respect directions given by judges, but on the other hand must accommodate these directions with a clear and genuine belief that the jury may feel that a verdict may be appropriate which is not in accordance with the law.'' Mr. Duncan said: "It tends to happen in Bermuda in cases where somebody has been the subject of ongoing violence and at some stage they snap and react to the violence.

"It also is apparent in cases where Police officers present evidence which is difficult to accept or where the evidence is contradicted by other evidence in the case and the normal course of human experience.'' And he added: "Juries often apply these principles to how they determine the guilt or innocence of a defendant.'' But Mr. Duncan insisted the jury system was the best available -- and turned his face against juryless trials before three judge courts.

The three-judge no-jury trial is used in Northern Ireland and are known as Diplock courts after the English judge who headed an inquiry which recommended them, amid fears of jury intimidation.

Mr. Duncan said: "The jury system is the best system we have because it gives members of the public a feeling that they can play a part in determining the guilt or innocence of fellow citizens, as opposed to the state determining that question.

"There is community acceptance of the fairness of a verdict which is rendered by twelve people unconnected with the legal machinery of the state and who come from different backgrounds with no reason to render anything but a fair and impartial verdict.'' Delroy Duncan