Collapse of Pryce case 
prompts call for greater 
research into juries

The ex-wife of former minister Chris Huhne faces a retrial after a jury described as suffering “absolutely fundamental deficits in understanding” failed to reach a verdict in her case.

Pryce, 60, will stand trial again for perverting the course of justice as early as next week after the jury at Southwark Crown Court was discharged after saying it was “highly unlikely” it would reach even a majority verdict.

Former DPP Lord Macdonald of River Glaven told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “We perhaps ought to allow a bit more access to jury reasoning than we do.

“I think it is impossible for researchers to conduct any kind of examination at any time into what has gone on in jury rooms. In other jurisdictions under controlled conditions researchers are allowed to question jurors, to come to some conclusions about the way they are deliberating and how the process works.

“If you have a better understanding of that then perhaps it’s easier to frame directions to juries that they will follow and understand.

“I don’t believe this is a general problem but I do think we should allow a bit more research into the way juries go about their tasks.”

Former lord chief justice Lord Woolf told Today: “I wouldn’t rush into doing anything, I would think about it. If there was anything that might help us to be reassured about the jury, Lord Macdonald’s put his finger on it.

“Some very carefully organised, responsible research may be a good thing, but it would have to be treated with great care.”

The jury trying Pryce submitted a series of 10 questions to the judge during their deliberations. Mr Justice Sweeney said in 30 years he had never seen a situation like it after being presented with the list of questions after jurors spent nearly 14 hours considering the case.

They included: “Can a juror come to a verdict based on a reason that was not presented in court and has no facts or evidence to support it, either from the prosecution or defence?”

Prosecutor Andrew Edis QC said the jury of eight women and four men did not appear to have “truly understood” its task.

During the trial at Southwark Crown Court, Pryce claimed a defence of marital coercion, claiming Huhne forced her to take speeding points for him nearly a decade ago.