Preventing improper juror conduct and ensuring effective jury deliberations

In recent years juror use of the internet during criminal trials has resulted in numerous mistrials, causing substantial financial costs to the criminal court system and personal distress and hardship to victims and witnesses who must give difficult evidence again at retrials, and posing the threat of possible miscarriages of justice.

The 2010 study Are Juries Fair? was able to establish three key facts about juries for the first time in this country:
1. A quarter of jurors on high profile cases had seen information about their case on the internet during trial
2. Almost half of all jurors did not know or were uncertain what constituted improper jury conduct
3. The majority of jurors what more information about how to conduct jury deliberations

The initial findings of Are juries Fair? raise serious doubts about whether jurors do in fact understand what improper juror conduct is and how to conduct deliberations. Therefore this follow-on research to Are Juries Fair? is designed to answer two crucial questions about jurors and the jury system in this country:
1. How can jurors be prevented from improperly using the internet during trials?
2. How can jurors be provided with guidance that will ensure effective jury deliberations?

This research has been identified by senior members of the Judiciary of England and Wales, Her Majesty's Court Service and other criminal justice stakeholders as the top priority area for further jury research following the 2010 report Are Juries Fair?. Using a multi-staged approach and working exclusively with real juries at Crown Courts, this research will provide answers to these crucial questions and will establish new tools to be used in jury trials to ensure proper conduct and effective deliberations. This research draws on the established jury research expertise of the UCL Jury Project team and has secured in advance the support and cooperation of key members of the criminal justice system in order to conduct this research.

The objective of the research is to ensure that the findings of Are Juries Fair? are carried forward to create new tools which jurors clearly need and want in order to fulfill their unique and crucial role in the criminal justice system. This in turn will ensure that trial by jury can survive the digital age and will continue to play a crucial role in a 21st century criminal justice system.

The issues addressed by this research are so fundamental to the jury system that the individuals, groups and organisations that will benefit directly from the proposed research are extensive and cover the key stakeholders in the criminal justice system, including the judiciary, Her Majesty's Courts Service, Ministry of Justice, Judicial Studies Boards, Criminal Cases Review Commission as well as members of the public who serve as jurrs or witnesses.

This proposal has come about as a direct result of an extensive consultation process with those directly involved in the criminal justice system, initiated by Professor Thomas following the publication in February 2010 of her report Are Juries Fair?. That consultation identified the main priority area for further jury research where there was the widest agreement on the need for such research. There was unanimous agreement among the judiciary, courts and government that the priority was for research that followed up the findings in Are Juries Fair? on improper jury conduct, particularly improper juror use of the internet during trial, and on jurors' desire for more information on how to conduct deliberations.

Policy-makers and public sector beneficiaries
The following have already been consulted and indicated that this research will be of significant benefit:
1. Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, The Rt Hon the Lord Judge
2. Senior Presiding Judge of England and Wales, Lord Justice Goldring
3. Deputy Head of Criminal Justice, Lord Justice Thomas
4. HHJ David Swift, Head of Criminal Sub-committee of the Council of Circuit Judges
5. Marilyn Reed and John Wright, HMCS, Senior Policy Advisors, Victim & Witness and Juror Branch
6. HHJ John Phillips, Director of Studies, Judicial Studies Board
7. Gillian Hawkins, Head of Better Trials Unit, Ministry of Justice
8. Jessica Haskins, Ministry of Justice, Constitution & Access to Justice - Analytical Services (CAJAS)
9. Serving Jurors
10. Criminal Cases Review Commission

The importance of this research and the support for it by the main stakeholders is also reflected in the fact that two key individuals representing the main stakeholders in the criminal justice system, Lord Justice Thomas (Deputy Head of Criminal Justice) and Marilyn Reed (Senior Policy Advisory HMCS Victim & Witness and Juror Branch), have written letters of support for the research to be submitted with this application to the ESRC

Public beneficiaries
These include jurors, victims and witnesses in the most serious criminal trials in this country. Jurors will benefit from this research in two fundamental ways. First, they will benefit because it will lead to jurors clearly understanding what improper jury conduct is (including internet use) and how to report - and this will ensure that mistrials do not occur for these reasons and that jurors themselves do not commit the criminal offence of contempt. Victims and witnesses will also benefit, because preventing mistrials in future ensures that victims and witnesses will not be subjected to giving evidence more than once in a trial. Jurors will benefit further because they have clearly indicated that they would like more guidance on how to conduct deliberations, and this research will ensure that they receive this in the most effective way possible.

Immediate Impact
The judiciary and HMCS have indicated that the results of this research will be put into practice in jury trials across the country immediately. This reflects the urgency of the research and the high impact the findings will have on the effective functioning of criminal trials.

International impact
Criminal courts in other jurisdictions are also facing identical problems with trying to prevent jurors from using the internet, and this research will influence policy makers responsible for criminal trials in jurisdictions such as US, Australia, Candaa and New Zealand.