Report's verdict on the troubling case of our jury system

IN Twelve Angry Men the claustrophobic atmosphere of the jury room was artfully exposed.

The black and white film focuses on the deliberations as one group of jurors are left to decide the fate of a young boy accused of murdering his father.

As they retire to consider their verdict, all except one are convinced of his guilt, but after what seems like days, the lone voice of Henry Fonda persuades them to change their minds and the teenager escapes the death sentence.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Released in 1957, it was a compelling portrait of how juries come to their decisions and how, without those willing to fight their corner, justice might never be done. Little has changed in those intervening years.

Look across at any jury and there will be a couple staring into space and at least one who looks like they'd be more comfortable in the dock. Even those who do take their community duty seriously often struggle to wade through the legal arguments and leave the court unsure whether the right decision has been made.

The jury system has been the cornerstone of the British criminal justice system for the last 800 years and during that time no-one has come up with a better alternative. However, doubts as to its

effectiveness remain and many of its critics will find some vindication within the pages of new report.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

The two-year study, led by Professor Cheryl Thomas of University College London, analysed 68,000 verdicts across Crown Courts in England and Wales as well as staging mock trials to gauge just how attentively juries listened to both the evidence and the judge.

Given that the language of the law courts is couched in baffling

archaic terms and that juries spend hours at a time listening to

complex evidence and the often emotional testament of witnesses, it's perhaps little wonder that two-thirds of jurors admitted to not fully understanding the judge's legal directions.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

"When jurors are only instructed orally by the judge they are much less likely to able to recall the specific language that the judge used," said Prof Thomas. "We need to really focus on giving jurors the best tools to do that job and if that means using written legal instructions alongside oral instructions, then this is something that needs to

be considered."

The report also highlighted the tendency of some jurors to ignore basic instructions, turning to the internet despite being warned searching online for information about defendants could prejudice the outcome of the case. It also showed that while women are more likely to be open to persuasion from other members of the jury, men rarely changed their minds.

Despite the flaws in the system, the study concluded juries were in general fair and just, but for those who already have their doubts it will only add more fuel to the fire.

Last year it emerged the number of hung juries – where no verdict is reached – had more than doubled from 52 in 2006 to 116 in 2008. At the moment, the numbers may be small, but according to Trevor Grove, author of the Juryman's Tale, the problem is only likely to increase in the future.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

"I do think we live in an era where people are much more nervous about being judgmental," said Mr Grove.

"In fact, judgmental is used as a pejorative adjective more often than not, whereas the generation before mine, and certainly the generation before my parents' were happy to be judgmental.

"There's also what's known as the CSI effect. Forensic science has made great breakthroughs in DNA evidence, but it means, especially in cases of murder, the jury would like to see the prosecution having all the boxes ticked. But the fact is, if it were that clear-cut the case probably wouldn't have come to trial; the defendant would have been advised to admit their guilt. Cases are very seldom that clear- cut – that's why they go to trial.

"When I was called for jury service at the Old Bailey, the case

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

involved the kidnap of a Greek shipping magnate and a $3m ransom. There were many doubts about whether the victim was really so innocent as he seemed, but I still believe the jury system is the best way to decide cases.

"They may be clumsy, fallible, expensive and slow, but the greatest legal minds have always understood this, and, like Lord Devlin once said the jury is 'the lamp that shows that freedom lives'."