BBC puts celebrities in TV court

[Luna]

Disgraced peer Jeffrey Archer, actress Honor Blackman and Blur bassist Alex James are to take part in BBC Two's new courtroom show The Verdict.
They will form part of a celebrity jury in a fictitious court case featuring a footballer charged with rape.

BBC Two controller Roly Keating said the series would show the inner workings of the jury system.

But one victim's charity has warned the programme may upset victims of rape when it is broadcast early next year.

The Verdict will also feature Sara Payne, the mother of murdered schoolgirl Sarah, footballer Stan Collymore and actress Patsy Palmer.

The case features the fictitious rape trial of an internationally famous footballer, Damien Scott, and his friend, James Greer.

THE VERDICT JURY
Jeffery Archer - former Tory MP
Honor Blackman - actress
Stan Collymore - former footballer
Jennifer Ellison - actress
Jacqueline Gold - businesswoman
Alex James - musician
MegaMan - musician
Dominic McVey - entrepreneur
Patsy Palmer - actress
Sara Payne - campaigner
Michael Portillo - former Tory MP
Ingrid Tarrant - TV presenter

The 12 jurors will sit in judgement on a four-day unscripted trial in a real courtroom, presided over by a real judge - the recently retired Lord Neil Denison - with real barristers prosecuting and defending.

The jury will then retire to begin their deliberations, with TV cameras to observe the jury as it reaches it verdict.

Mr Keating said: "This is a hugely ambitious project which brings the law to life in a completely new way.

"It will be fascinating to follow the twists and turns of the case, see the dynamics and power struggles within the jury, learn about the jury system with its inherent flaws and strengths."

But Andrew Buckingham of national charity Victim Support, said there was a fine line between entertainment and education.

"There is nothing wrong with trying to demystify the criminal justice process but it is important to control how you do that," he said.

"The BBC has assembled together a very eclectic mix of celebrities and public figures.


Party Animals is from the writers of This Life

"Our concern would be that the novelty factor, and their interaction as they deliberate, may overshadow and detract from the real issue that this is a rape trial.

"There is no doubt that it will be entertaining but I'm not sure how educational it will be.

"It may also upset some people, particularly rape victims, witnesses and those who have served on a jury for a rape case, that this is being used for entertainment."

The show is one of the highlights of BBC Two's winter and spring 2007 schedule which was unveiled on Tuesday.

Other new shows include Jennifer Saunders's The Life and Times of Vivienne Vyle, set in the world of confessional TV shows, political drama Party Animals and Louis Theroux visits Las Vegas in Louis & The Casino.

Graham Norton presents a new talk show for BBC Two, The Graham Norton Show, while Top Gear also returns with Richard Hammond.

And in The Truth About Food, presenters - including Colin Jackson, Fiona Bruce and Vic Reeves - will take viewers on a journey of discovery to find out what food can do for them.

Meanwhile, Torchwood has been recommissioned for a second series, but it will move from BBC Three to BBC Two.

Filming is due to start in Cardiff in Spring 2007 and the series will hit screens later next year.

[Bryan]

Sounds great! Legal reality show, how bril!

Plus with Honour Blackman in it, it can only be a bonus!

[Katy]

it will be interesting to see how this works out. If it all goes to plan it should work well.

[Bryan]

Seen the trailer for this today, can't wait to watch it, should make a change to the usual drivel on tv. Anyone else going to watch this?

[Abbie]

I cant wait for this and the adverts look so good.

[DaVeyWaVey]

I am definetly going to watch it! It looks brilliant, and a very original show!

[pookie1968uk]

i have seen the trailers for this and it looks really good. does anyone know when it is starting, it just keeps saying coming soon.

[alan45]

FFS having convicted criminal and serial liar Jeffery Archer on it hardly does it credit

[Abbie]

On the adverts it says its starting this sunday at 9pm BBC2

[Meh]

FFS having convicted criminal and serial liar Jeffery Archer on it hardly does it credit


That and Stan Collymore. Didn't he give Ulrika a good beating?

[CrazyLea]

I'll probably give it a miss.. I'd rather it if it wasn't celebrities, and just normal people. But that's just me :D

[Katy]

I think that your right Lea if it were normal people, it will interesting to see if the celebrities have a braincell between the lot of them though.

I htink your right TM i think Collymore did beat up Ulrika, im sure i read it some where.

[DaVeyWaVey]

It starts tonight, i'm going to give it a look and see what i think.

[Bryan]

I must remember to set my video for it, as I'm watching the BAFTAS tonight.

Come to think of it I'm out tomorrow, and it's the Brits on Wednesday so out of the 4 shows I will only see one of the episodes when it's first aired!

Couldn't have come at a worse time really :lol: However I will make sure I get around to watching it, like my legal stuff I do :D

[Bryan]

anyone see this last night?

I did and it was gripping from start to finish. Really highlights the troubles that jurys face in a rape trial, as some said you can never tell what went on in the hotel room and whether she gave her consent or not.

I'm inclined to think that the victim and her friend are liars, it justs seems so iffy, what with selling the story to the papers before going to the police, and the defendant being a famous footballer, call me cynical but i reckon these two women did it for the money...:hmm:

[Siobhan]

anyone see this last night?

I did and it was gripping from start to finish. Really highlights the troubles that jurys face in a rape trial, as some said you can never tell what went on in the hotel room and whether she gave her consent or not.

I'm inclined to think that the victim and her friend are liars, it justs seems so iffy, what with selling the story to the papers before going to the police, and the defendant being a famous footballer, call me cynical but i reckon these two women did it for the money...:hmm:

I seen most of it (lost called me at 10) and i am not sure.. her mate did look dodgy. I don't think it was for the money, I reckon she did have sex with them but she said rape cause she doesn't want her dad to know she did it willingly

[Abbie]

anyone see this last night?

I did and it was gripping from start to finish. Really highlights the troubles that jurys face in a rape trial, as some said you can never tell what went on in the hotel room and whether she gave her consent or not.

I'm inclined to think that the victim and her friend are liars, it justs seems so iffy, what with selling the story to the papers before going to the police, and the defendant being a famous footballer, call me cynical but i reckon these two women did it for the money...:hmm:

I seen most of it (lost called me at 10) and i am not sure.. her mate did look dodgy. I don't think it was for the money, I reckon she did have sex with them but she said rape cause she doesn't want her dad to know she did it willingly
Same here I watched most of it until 10 because if lost, can anyone fill me in on what I missed?

[Katy]

I didnt see it, but my law teacher taped it, so she said we could watch it if we want. I can imagine the trouble that the jury would have with a rape case which is somtimes why the Jury system doesnt work all the time. I ll have to catch it to night if im not doing anything.

[DaVeyWaVey]

I watched it last night and it was absolutely fantastic! I love this show, i was glued to this show from start to finish.

The actress who plays rape victim Anna is fantastic, she acted very well in the witness box. Clare Golding is very suspicious, i think there is more to her. If she wanted justice for her friend and really cared for her, why didn't she just give the tape to the police instead of a national newspaper to make money out of it? So far, i am thinking of a not guilty verdict. The defence is just too strong in my opinion. There was no bruising, Anna didn't scream for help, her clothes weren't ripped, and like i said above, why didn't her friend just give the tape to the police and not sell it to a national newspaper? Plus her friend has only spent £10,000 when she said she didn't want the money in the first place. :rolleyes: Is she saving the other £20,000 for her friend? I think she is!

Despite that we will never know if Anna did give consent to sex or not, the evidence so far suggests to me a not guilty verdict. I think Anna and Clare plotted the whole thing..that's my opinion so far.

[Jojo]

This is a very difficult one. I watched this earlier today after sky +ing and felt that Stan Collymore had made his mind up from the minute he knew that the "defendant" was a "famous footballer"

I think Claire went after the money - plain and simple, although her line of questioning during the interview that she was taping was more like a police officer interviewing a suspect, not a friend being there for a mate.

But I don't think anyone can say whether or not they think the defendants are guilty or not guilty until seeing ALL of the evidence presented to them. Tonight, forensic evidence is presented about the injuries sustained during the alleged rape, so this will be interesting to see.

[DaVeyWaVey]

I watched this programme again last night, it was fantastic again. The forensic stuff was very interesting to hear, i am still convinced of a not guilty verdict though. I think the defence had a stronger day again, rather than the prosecution.

Stan is starting to get on my nerves though...

[Jojo]

I don't know though - the tear issue - if it was wanted, surely a massive amount of lubrication would be used to prevent this from happening, or at least being very gentle (trying not to sound crude here).

I think its hard for the defences "witness statement" to be taken for very much - she wasn't available for cross examination, so anything said, could not be be refuted, questioned or looked at in any manner other than that that was read out.

Stan Collymore is being ridiculous. Shouting above everyone and then saying how annoying it is when people do that. Saying what he did to Jeffery Archer - ok so Archer isn't the most reliable of people, but neither is Stan. He needs to shut up and let the others make their own minds up instead of trying to influence them.

[Siobhan]

I can't believe it was a "not Guilty" verdict... I still believe they are guilty of something

[Bryan]

That's what I'd have had to say. I had a big niggling feeling that they did it, but in terms of the law there wasnt enough evidence to give a guilty verdict.

Just shows how easy it is to get away with rape, which is very disturbing.

I'd have liked to have seen what actually happened, for my own peice of mind, they should have showed it at the end after the verdict had been made.

[Abbie]

I missed it in the end , so did you find out what was the actual truth?

[DaVeyWaVey]

I missed it in the end , so did you find out what was the actual truth?

No they didn't and this really annoyed me...they should have shown a flashback of what happened on that night to see who was lying and to see if the jury made the right decision..

[Bryan]

I missed it in the end , so did you find out what was the actual truth?

No they didn't and this really annoyed me...they should have shown a flashback of what happened on that night to see who was lying and to see if the jury made the right decision..

I agree they should have. Saying that I suppose they wanted us to feel like the jury do. They dont have the advantage of seeing the past and make decisons entirley on evidence and never know for sure if it was the right/wrong decison to make. That's life, you never get the full picture.

[Jojo]

I think they were right though - they all said (or at least most of them) that they felt that the rape had taken place, but based on the evidence that was presented to them, there was still doubt as to whether this was the case and the verdict is based solely on evidence presented.

Excellent programme though - I wonder if they'll do another one.

[Abbie]

Must be really annoying not knowing what happened, so do you think they were right?

[Jojo]

I think the girl was raped personally. But like I said before, the Prosecution didn't provide evidence that made me believe that without a shadow of a doubt. There were little anomolies etc that weren't right to me.

Even at the end the CPS barrister said that the jury had made the right decision based on the evidence that was presented to them, but that justice had not been served for Anna.