The judge summed up flawlessly. In his nimble yet thorough synopsis of all the evidence he not only reminded the jury of its weight but also the caution they should apply. Claire was very intelligent and articulate but how reliable could a seven-year-old be in recounting events from ten months ago? How easy would it have been for those who said they saw Bishop driving towards the Dyke to be sure it was him? Who did you believe between the police, who said the forensic samples were retrieved in accordance with strict guidelines, and the defence, who said it was planted?
It was his job to point out both sides of the story even if one touched on the ludicrous – such as the police planting the tyre tracks at the Dyke.
He was equally fastidious in spelling out the law. Walking them through each count on the indictment, he asked them to consider whether they were sure the acts that supported each charge had actually happened. Once they were satisfied they had, were they then sure it was Bishop who committed them? Nothing less than a yes to both of those questions would do.
Some of my former colleagues would speculate from a summing-up whether a judge was pro-prosecution or pro-defence. This naivety infuriates me. Judges are neither. They are simply pro-fair trial. Often, they will bend over backwards for the defence, knowing that to come down too hard on them could provide grounds for appeal.
In the 2008 trial of those responsible for shooting dead eleven-year-old Liverpool boy Rhys Jones, the judge appeared to tolerate horseplay between the defendants while asking Rhys’s mother to reconsider attending court if she could not stop crying. In what could be seen as outrageous double standards, the judge was just letting the jury see the yobbish killers for what they were, while preventing accusations down the line that they were swayed by an emotional grieving mother.
In Bishop’s case the judge allowed, and repeated, the defence’s extraordinary explanations and accusations and reminded the jury only they could judge the facts – did they really believe this?
The jury were not fooled. Having sat through twenty-one days of evidence, with tractor-loads of mud thrown in the hope some would stick and so many outlandish alternative explanations proposed, it took them just four hours to deliver their unanimous verdict – guilty on all counts.
Bishop crumbled. Head in his hands, he sobbed, knowing what was coming next.