I am honoured that my thread on Thomas Erskine KC has attracted some 500 new followers overnight: to him be the glory. We all know the work of Blackstone, and latterly Lord Devlin's famous quotation defending the jury system, but Erskine's motto was 'TRIAL BY JURY.'

Erskine's character was established by his defence of that bulwark of freedom in those notorious State Trials.

This was his defence of the Jury in an earlier trial, defending the Dean of St.Asaph for libel in 1784: "The administration of justice in the hands of the people is the basis for all freedom. Whilst that remains there can be no tyranny."

He went on to say, bravely (and he was nothing if not courageous)that this was "because the people will not execute tyrannical laws upon themselves." He was therefore advocating 'jury nullification' - that good people will not condemn their fellows because of bad laws.

Erskine prophesied that if trial by jury was lost, "liberty must fall along with it, because the sword of justice falls into the hands of men who...have no common interest in the mass of the people."

His judgement rings true today, and his successors have honoured it. The CBA, and criminal solicitors unanimously rejected the abrogation or suspension of jury trial during this continuing health emergency.

It would have been very easy to accept the financial inducement. Solicitors and Barristers have been hit hard by the pandemic. Cash flow has dried up. Trials are cancelled or adjourned for months or years ahead.

If the proposal to suspend jury trial had been supported by solicitors and the Bar, trials, capable of being heard by juries, would have been conducted before magistrates. The financial drought for the profession would have ended.

You shouldn't get praised for doing the right thing - but the Law Society and The Bar did do the right thing. Too often we're accused, baselessly, of doing the very opposite. Frankly, it sometimes hurts because it's such a travesty and so removed from the truth.

Erskine, were he transported here, today, might not recognise the Judiciary, which in his time was the handmaiden of The Executive. He would, however, recognise The Executive's restless desire to arrogate power, and to muzzle the judges.

Sentimental as it might seem, I think he'd recognise modern advocates, defending individuals before the state. Much has changed, but what he said in 1784 holds good: 'Our whole history is... chequered with the struggles of our ancestors to maintain this important privilege."