We tend to think of the Crown Court as a place where ‘the truth’ of an alleged wrongdoing is established – whether by way of jury verdict or a defendant's guilty plea – in order that, where the wrongdoing is proven, an appropriate punishment can be meted out. However, the findings of this study suggest that the reality is more complicated than this. Very often, court proceedings seem to be not so much about establishing ‘what really happened’ but, rather, are an arena for managing conflict between alleged wrongdoers and those allegedly wronged by them, and between their wildly different accounts of the same event. In the process, different black-and-white versions of what is often a shades-of-grey reality are aired and debated, while ‘the truth’ of it all remains unknown and unknowable. This process of conflict management, moreover, is undertaken through the medium of a highly ritualised public performance, which helps to maintain the court environment's ‘delicate separateness to normal reality’ (Fielding, 2006, p 53).

Drawing on the findings of our empirical research, this chapter will look at how and why ‘the truth’ often remains elusive in the Crown Court, both in cases which go to trial, and in cases where the defendant has pleaded guilty. This will be followed by discussion of courtroom ‘performance’ and ritual, and of the incongruities contained within these proceedings.

Crown Court trials and the elusive truth

With the above comment, one of this study's respondents, Steve, summed up his most recent experience of the Crown Court. Steve was a middle-aged man who had appeared in court as a defendant many times; on the last occasion, he was on trial for arson. He was found guilty of the offence and received a six-year prison sentence.

Notwithstanding the taken-for-grantedness of ‘the notion that trial is a truth finding exercise’ (Sanchirico, 2001, p 1306), arguably it is in the very nature of the adversarial system that ‘the truth’ is likely to remain at least partially elusive or hidden during a trial.