With reference to Roger Plenty’s letter in the 1 November SNJ, I would not like anyone to think that Mr Plenty is right when he says that Trudy Warner’s statement ‘Jurors you have the right to acquit a defendant according to your conscience’ and that this has been part of English law for over three centuries.

I’m not sure which law book he’s been reading but the law for that length and longer is that a juror must give his decision in accordance with the evidence and following the judge’s directions.

They cannot ignore the evidence and any directions from the judge to give a verdict in accordance to their own beliefs. To do so would breach their oath as a juror. The same would apply if a juror wanted to convict on a judge’s direction to acquit.

I would agree that views which don’t breach any laws eg racism, should not be suppressed because we don’t agree with them. I would hate for the general public to miss a good laugh at the frankly risible views held by various crackpot groups.

Margaret Headen,