Another brilliant - and still highly topical - speech from Rumpole [see link below], making the crucial point that just because a jury may, on the evidence, be entitled to find somebody guilty in law, it doesn't follow that they should. The jury is sovereign as to both facts and, ultimately, the law too. That's the whole point. That's how the jury system protects our liberties, when it works as it should.
Even if a case is proved on the evidence, if the jury does not want to find somebody guilty, maybe because they take the view that the accused does not deserve to be punished, then they can still find the accused Not Guilty. That is their right and it is a right recognised in common law: known as jury equity.
I've only ever known one real-life barrister who was like Rumpole. He tutored me informally in the law while dealing with my cases at the time, explaining things to me and telling me what books to read. He was very much like Rumpole - looked like him and spoke like him, though the fictional character is obviously an exaggeration.
If only more barristers were Rumpolean, the criminal justice system would be better. Most barristers are rather too tame, in my view.
What would a Rumpolean defence of Jeremy Bamber have looked like? I've mentioned before that if I was defending Jeremy at trial, I would have considered it a priority to present the jury with a 'story'. No offence to Rivlin and Lawson, but I think they rested too much on doubt and did not have a compelling narrative to present to the jury that would stick in their minds. The more extravagant, Rumpolean approach would have addressed this and provided the jury with a frame of reference within which to understand Jeremy and define him. As it was, the drier, more 'careful' attitude of Rivlin left it to the Crown to dictate the 'story' and define Jeremy Bamber.
Going back to the clip, I also like the little comical bow right at the end. Leo McKern was superb.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQ-uX_JqBk8