The law often calls for a judgment of what is ‘reasonable’ or what a ‘reasonable man would do?’ Judges may tend to answer this question based on their personal opinion whereas the jury, as representative of the common public is more likely to judge in line with generally accepted values of the society.
This is evident in case of R v Ponting (1985); in this case Clive ponting a civil servant working in the ministry of defence sent confidential documents about the sinking of a ship to an MP on the grounds of public interest. Despite the judges clear conclusion that ponting was guilty under the official secret Act. The jury argued that his prosecution was politically inspired and consequently found him not guilty.
This is evident in case of R v Ponting (1985); in this case Clive ponting a civil servant working in the ministry of defence sent confidential documents about the sinking of a ship to an MP on the grounds of public interest. Despite the judges clear conclusion that ponting was guilty under the official secret Act. The jury argued that his prosecution was politically inspired and consequently found him not guilty.