Interview with Brian Barker, Judge on C4's The Trial

13 March 2017

 What is the role of a judge in a murder trial?

The judge is there to make sure the trial is fair and to make sure everyone within it has the best opportunity to do what they’ve come along to do, because it can be an intimidating, uncomfortable experience. If they’re cross-examined, that’s part of the process, but I want them to go away thinking: I’ve had that opportunity. It’s to make sure the rules are observed and that there is a fair trial in every sense.

How much knowledge of a case would the judge have before going into a trial?

The larger the case, the more likely it is that there’s been management before the case gets going. Over a six-month period of bail applications or applications to get certain evidence, and timetabled meetings to ensure it’s planned properly, the judge will build up knowledge. Not too much, though, because you, like the jury, are listening to the evidence and dealing with it as it goes along.

Did The Trial feel as authentic as it could be?

I think it did. Every attempt was made to create as surroundings that were as realistic as possible, which I think they were. The team and the cameras were totally unobtrusive, which I was surprised by, and I had a sizeable volume of papers which I could dip into and refer to throughout the trial. There was no script. It evolved as a trial would evolve – there was no stopping and starting once we got into the courtroom, and I was given complete freedom. It was exactly as it would have been and whatever I said should be done was done. The only moment of unreality came in the robing room, when I was asked to put my robe on again slightly differently or look at a wig from another angle, or somesuch. There will have been very few times on TV where a trial has been played out in a more realistic way than this.

You’ve had an extraordinary career. Did it give you pause for thought that having a permanent record of your performance on The Trial might affect your reputation?

It had crossed my mind! I wait with baited breath, although the focus shouldn’t be on the referee but on the game itself and I hope that’s the case here. I saw myself as a facilitator.

Did you give as good an account of yourself as you reasonably could have?

I think so, although there were practical problems you would not have in a trial. Time constraints made it more difficult, and I had some back problems which required treatment during the course of the fortnight, but once you start you get on with it.

How familiar were you with Max Hill and John Ryder?

They’ve both led cases in front of me. I know Max quite well from the bar generally and I’m on a board of trustees with him. I’ve known John for a long time without knowing him well.

How would you describe their styles?

Quite different! Max is predominantly a prosecutor, very conscientious, very thorough, very able. John is also very able but in quite a different way and his style is far more suited to defending, in that often the defence will concentrate on one or two things rather than the broader sweep. The job of the prosecution is to present to a very high standard, the defence’s job is to identify a reasonable doubt and persuade the jury of that.

Did the jurors seem fairly typical in terms of the questions they asked, the guidance they needed?

I think so. With a jury, there’s little interaction. I talk to them and hope I’m relating to them, but I’m not inviting a response. It’s not a dialogue, but you hope the monologue is effective.

Have you done jury service?

I haven’t, but some very senior judges have, after the law was changed. I have given evidence in a civil trial so I have had the experience of being cross-examined, albeit not very hard. I have considerable sympathy with those who are. It is a very lonely place. You’re alone in the spotlight and you can’t phone a friend or ask your mum. You can be taken apart if you’re not very careful, which must be a devastating experience.

Will access to the jury room be the most fascinating aspect of The Trial for you?

Yes, and seeing their response to the way in which things are done. My only worry is how much they were aware of the television cameras. There was no hamming up from us, apart from John, but he does that anyway! It’ll be interesting to see the effect of cross-examination and speeches. Juries must vary, it’s only human, and you hope there will be free and frank discussion. There is usually somebody with fixed views in any jury, but you hope that they will be balanced out by the other members. In any case, the system allows for that with majority verdicts. It’s the best we can do, I think, in that it’s 12 citizens who can say what they like. I’m a great believer in the jury system. It’s very important that citizens of this country are entitled to be on juries and may sometimes bring in verdicts that go against the interests of the state. There are very few other countries in the world where that would stand.

What do you hope viewers will draw from The Trial?

That we have a proper and decent jury criminal justice system which works, provides a fair trial and is done thoroughly. It’s still a hallmark, just about, that under legal aid someone can still get a very able team to present their defence, whoever they are, and to test the prosecution case. It’s a very important part of our democracy.