Supreme Court Justice Paul de Jersey says most people don't understand how justice system works Supreme Court Justice Paul de Jersey has used Law Week to highlight legislative flaws as the courts prepare to hear some of the biggest criminal cases in Queensland's history Source: The Courier-Mail THE state's top judge says most Queenslanders do not understand how the justice system works - or even what amounts to reasonable doubt. Supreme Court Justice Paul de Jersey has used Law Week to highlight legislative flaws as the courts prepare to hear some of the biggest criminal cases in Queensland's history. In the next 12 months, the Supreme Court will hear the case against Brett Peter Cowan, for the alleged murder of Sunshine Coast teen Daniel Morcombe, the accused wife killer Gerard Baden-Clay and the trio charged with the murder of police officer Damian Leeding. Justice de Jersey said the trials would attract intense public scrutiny but few people would have a good understanding of how the justice system worked. Speaking generally and not to any one case, he said jurors were dedicated and listened carefully to evidence, but were still unsure of what amounted to reasonable doubt. They often ask what is beyond reasonable doubt, which I can't tell them. We can say reasonable doubt is what you believe a reasonable doubt to be," Justice de Jersey said. A lot of people thought it meant proof to a scientific certainty. Asked if some defendants were getting off because of the lack of understanding, he said, "who would know?" More importantly, you'd hope people weren't being wrongly convicted. Justice de Jersey has advocated for legislative change to be able to tell jurors during a trial what was reasonable doubt. I've been a judge for 28 years and I've been shocked right through that period with the comparatively low understanding of the court process of my fellow citizens. There are two really glaring examples of that level of ignorance; the question about how many people comprise a jury in the criminal court . . . and, secondly, it's very widely thought there is no free access to the court for persons who want to attend and watch. He said the lack of understanding contributed to outrage over the perceived light sentences handed down. It's really based often on an inadequate appreciation of relevant circumstances (of the defendant). Recently, there have been suggestions some defendants charged with criminal offences are favoured, discriminately against others, through use of the mediation process, and that produced an expression of lack of confidence in the criminal justice system in this state. "There is no doubt the criminal justice process is the side of law court operations which most engages public attention because it deals with the treatment of offenders and victims," he said.