I would agree with that wholeheartedly. When researching my post I read teh following leture. It is dated and for me too self-congratulatory, but one of its conclusions I thinks sums British Justice up (or what it used to be, don't get me started on what it is today)
https://socialsciences.exeter.ac.uk/..._the_Law_1.pdf
In making these comparisons, we no doubt think
our system is better but we ought always to remember
that it is the system which suits the temperament of
our people. It would not necessarily be the best
system for other peoples. Remember that the jury
system has proved a failure in France. But one thing
is quite clear.
The system which has been built up
by our forefathers over the last 1000 years suits our
people because it is the best guarantee of our freedoms.
The fundamental safeguards have been established,
not so much by lawyers as by the common people of
England, by the unknown juryman who in 1367 said
he would rather die in prison than give a verdict
against his conscience, by Richard Chambers who in
1629 declared that never till death would he
acknowledge the sentence of the Star Chamber, by
Edmund Bushell and his eleven fellow-jurors who in
1670 went to prison rather than find the Quakers
guilty, by the jurors who acquitted the printer of the
Letters of Junius, and by a host of others. These
are the men who have bequeathed to us the heritage
of freedom. It is their spirit which William
Wordsworth interpreted so finely when he wrote :—
' We must be free or die, who speak the tongue
That Shakespeare spake ; the faith and morals hold
Which Milton held : In everything we are sprung
of Earth's first blood, have titles manifold.'