“The proposal to lift the prohibition on former judges, lawyers, particularly prosecution and legal aid lawyers, as well as former police raises serious issues as to whether these ‘expert’ or ‘specialist’ jurors will dominate deliberations in the jury room and influence jurors who defer to their greater knowledge and experience,” Mr Smith said.

“It is essential that the fundamental principles that all jurors are equal and that they are the judges of the facts, but not the law be preserved.

“The existing use of numbers rather than names to preserve the anonymity of jurors may worsen the situation. Prosecution and defence lawyers who may have challenged a named ‘expert’ juror, may not recognise the juror physically.

“While it is desirable that jurors bring their intelligence, knowledge and experience of life to their deliberations, the presence of criminal law ‘experts’ in the jury room could unduly influence less educated jurors.

“As it is not normal practice for the trial judge to question jurors as to why they reached a particular verdict, inappropriate domination of jury deliberations by an ‘expert’ would largely remain secret.

“History has shown that trials have been influenced by rogue jurors or jurors who conduct their own investigations into aspects of a case, by photographing a crime scene or conducting tests or experiments.

“Trials have also been terminated because inadmissible evidence is erroneously allowed into the jury room. These changes may add a further obstacle to achieving a fair verdict,” Mr Smith concluded.