A bizarre murder case... but could the jury have got this one wrong? CHRISTOPHER STEVENS

The Accused: Beyond Reasonable Doubt? (Ch4)

Rating: Four out of five stars

Democracy, as Winston Churchill remarked, 'is the worst form of Government... except for all those other forms'. The same could be said of the jury system, versus other forms of trial.

's excellent series on apparent miscarriages of justice, The Accused: Beyond Reasonable Doubt?, made the strongest possible case that a jury in 1993 returned the wrong verdict, against murder suspect Eddie Gilfoyle.

The problem is, that jury reached its decision based on the police investigation, the prosecuting barrister's arguments, the expert witness statements and the judge's guidance.

After that, the Court of Appeal turned down two attempts to have Gilfoyle's conviction overturned, and the Criminal Cases Review Commission refused an application for a third appeal.

In other words, if Eddie Gilfoyle was wrongly convicted, it wasn't just the jury's aberration. Every branch of the justice system worked against him.

And if we replaced or restricted the jury system - something the Ministry of Justice is considering - every other method of trial might be equally fallible.

The case against Gilfoyle, as set out in this methodical, clearly explained documentary, was a bizarre one. When his heavily pregnant wife, Paula, was found hanged in their garage in 1992, the police simply couldn't believe she'd taken her own life - despite the suicide note on the kitchen table.

Their assumption was that no woman due to have her first baby within weeks would be capable of such a tragic act. And if she didn't kill herself, someone must have killed her. The only possible suspect was her husband of barely a year, hospital porter Eddie.

Paula's family and friends were convinced she would not have done such a terrible thing. At the trial, one character witness after another attested to her happy, bubbly personality.

Gilfoyle denied killing her. But he suffered a breakdown and was committed to a psychiatric hospital. His lawyers offered no evidence in his defence. He was found guilty and sentenced to life in prison, with a minimum of 17 years.

This hour–long programme wisely did not try to make a mystery of the story. At the start, Gilfoyle's loyal brother–in–law, former police sergeant Paul Caddick, stated his absolute certainty that this was not a murder, and the show's viewpoint never wavered.

But the strongest evidence in Gilfoyle's favour was withheld to the end, simply because it was not uncovered for many years. Paula's diaries, which were in the police evidence lockers, revealed past traumas and struggles with mental health. She had suffered suicidal thoughts previously. The jury was not told.

Gilfoyle is now out of prison on licence, though still a convicted murderer. Channel 4 first took up cudgels on his behalf in its Trial And Error series, 30 years ago. Trial by television, like every other form of justice, doesn't always work.