Trial by jury is an ancient British tradition that has been adopted by many countries across the world and which has served justice in this country for many, many years.

That is not to say, however, that decisions reached by juries are always welcomed by those involved in the cases that come before crown court judges.

The family of Rachel Scantlebury are furious that Scott Dry was cleared of causing death by dangerous driving in the aftermath of the incident in which his high performance sports car went out of control and crashed, leaving Ms Scantlebury dead.

Mr Dry was instead found guilty of the lesser offence of careless driving, which carries a sentence of a motoring ban and a fine rather than imprisonment.

It emerged after the jury had returned their verdicts that Mr Dry had 11 points on his licence for three speeding offences prior to the fatal crash.

It would be against the traditions of the judicial system to speculate whether the jury would have come to a different conclusion had they been given this knowledge previously.

Under the current system, each criminal trial is heard purely with regard to the circumstances of that specific incident and it is considered unfair to the defendant to mention previous convictions which might colour a jury's view on the matter in hand.

It is, however, quite likely that this case will add fuel to the current ongoing debate over whether juries should indeed be given at least an outline of related habitual behaviour which might be considered relevant to the case they have in front of them.