Legal Opinion: Verdict of the jury on the workings of the jury system

Legal Opinion: Verdict of the jury on the workings of the jury system

The jury system has long been lauded as the soundest means of securing a just verdict. But why, wonders Robert Verkaik, Law Editor, hasn't anyone bothered to check?

One of the great mysteries of our criminal justice system is what happens when the jury is shut away in the deliberation room considering its verdict. Centuries of received wisdom holds that trial by jury is the fairest and safest means of deciding between guilt and innocence. But if we haven't done the research to support this universally recognised truth, how can we be so sure?

Politicians have long realised that anything which risks undermining the jury has the potential to bring down a pillar of our criminal justice system. So it is perhaps little wonder that governments have been reluctant to open this particular Pandora's box.

The last politician to try was Lord Falconer of Thoroton, the previous Lord Chancellor, who in 2005 inched the door open to allow limited academic research of the deliberation process. But his proposal has yet to bear any fruit.

The most recent attempt to provide an understanding of the workings of the jury looked at how race affects verdicts. The results of the study were published in June this year and showed that black and ethnic minority jurors tend to show more leniency to black defendants than their white counterparts in court.

Yet this study was commissioned as long ago as 2002 and still failed to tackle the thornier question of how all-white juries view black and Asian defendants.

A survey published last week by the Courts Service has now thrown a little more light on the experience of jurors who were asked to gauge their own satisfaction of the court process. Researchers for Mori found that nearly 90 per cent of jurors polled were either very or fairly satisfied with their overall treatment by the Jury Central Summoning Bureau (JCSB).

Ninety-nine per cent of jurors were satisfied that they received their jury summons in good time, 91 per cent found it easy to complete, 97 per cent found the accompanying guidance helpful and 90 per cent received a response to their summons in good time.

And when the summoned jurors finally got to court they were equally satisfied with the treatment they received from court staff (93 per cent), the politeness of court staff (95 per cent), the helpfulness of court staff (95 per cent) and court staff treating them fairly and sensitively (92 per cent).

But as soon as the researchers started probing into more complex areas of jurors' experience the satisfaction levels started to fall. Of those jurors who had questions about their role, only 87 per cent were satisfied with the ability of court staff to deal with their query there and then. Of greater concern was that only 39 per cent of jurors were satisfied with the time they spent waiting to be selected for trial, although 75 per cent were satisfied that they were kept informed of any delay and 70 per cent were satisfied with information provided about the time spent waiting to be selected for a trial.

As soon as the questions start to get interesting the survey comes to abrupt halt. Would it really have offended the rules of contempt to ask an anonymous juror whether they had been satisfied with their own contribution to justice or even whether they thought the judge had given them clear directions? Such omissions gives the impression that the Courts Service has missed a trick. Or could it be that there is just too much at stake to risk any tampering with the jury system?

r.verkaik@ independent.co.uk