Trials

I was in trials court last week, two cases, both very different but with one thing in common, both were cases of one person's word against another, with no independent evidence to corroborate either's version of events.
It's always difficult in such circumstances to make a judgement, a finding of fact, and sometimes more so than others. In the first case we came to a decision fairly quickly, the defendant’s story was neither credible nor believable, and I think he knew it; the second case was trickier.
Both the complainant and the defendant gave good and clear evidence and both were entirely credible, so how to choose between them?
In all trials it's the job of the prosecution to convince us, such that we are sure, of the defendant’s guilt, if there is any reasonable doubt then we must acquit.
In this particular case it was, as so often, the small things that tipped the balance, not so much what was said but how it was said and what questions were left unanswered.
We were two-one for conviction in the end but it took us almost a hour to get there and I was then left with the difficult task of explaining to the defendant that we didn’t believe him, and why, something that can prove awkward for some magistrates.

Juries in Crown Court trials are spared this part of the judgment process, simply announcing guilty or not guilty while we have to give reasons for our decisions, which can mean at times such as these effectively calling someone a liar.

It goes with the territory of being a court chairman and it is far better now than when I first started, when guilt was pronounced and sentence passed without ever giving any explanation as to our reasoning, but why I wonder are not juries obliged to also give reasons for their decisions? It seems to me that there is a dichotomy here when a defendant leaves the Magistrates’ Court knowing how a decision was reached, but not when leaving the Crown Court.