Retired judge Michael Harris says we should not reject reform, we should refine it. Christian Mole says the system is blighted by inefficiency

I understand the main argument for reducing the number of cases tried by jury: they take longer and are significantly more expensive (‘A move towards an authoritarian state’: what those with trial experience think of removing juries, 7 December). But two further points deserve emphasis.

First, most countries do not use juries. We are one of very few European nations that still do. During the imperial period we exported our system widely, yet even some former colonies have since abandoned it. The main countries retaining juries are the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. To insist that juries are essential to justice is, implicitly, to claim that the many modern democracies that do without them operate inadequate systems.