This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2013/may/15/juries-research-internet-use

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Verdict on juries: placing blind trust in them helps no one Verdict on juries: placing blind trust in them helps no one
(4 months later)
Almost a quarter of jurors in England and Wales currently misunderstand the restrictions on internet use during a trial, according to research just published.Almost a quarter of jurors in England and Wales currently misunderstand the restrictions on internet use during a trial, according to research just published.
A significant number, 16%, wrongly believe they are not even allowed to check their emails while they are on jury service. On the other hand, and more alarmingly, 5% believe there are no restrictions at all on internet use during a trial while 2% believe they can look for information about a case so long as they don't let it affect their judgment.A significant number, 16%, wrongly believe they are not even allowed to check their emails while they are on jury service. On the other hand, and more alarmingly, 5% believe there are no restrictions at all on internet use during a trial while 2% believe they can look for information about a case so long as they don't let it affect their judgment.
Jurors are routinely told that they must not do their own research on the cases they are trying. Last year, a juror was given six months' imprisonment because she had searched online for information about the defendant. But jurors are perfectly free to check their emails and conduct other business online when they are not sitting in court or deliberating.Jurors are routinely told that they must not do their own research on the cases they are trying. Last year, a juror was given six months' imprisonment because she had searched online for information about the defendant. But jurors are perfectly free to check their emails and conduct other business online when they are not sitting in court or deliberating.
The latest findings were obtained by Professor Cheryl Thomas, director of the jury project at the University College London law faculty. Her team spoke to 239 jurors immediately after they had returned verdicts in 20 different cases tried in London over the past year or so. Contrary to popular myth, such research is not prohibited by the Contempt of Court Act 1981 — which applies only to jurors' "deliberations".The latest findings were obtained by Professor Cheryl Thomas, director of the jury project at the University College London law faculty. Her team spoke to 239 jurors immediately after they had returned verdicts in 20 different cases tried in London over the past year or so. Contrary to popular myth, such research is not prohibited by the Contempt of Court Act 1981 — which applies only to jurors' "deliberations".
Presenting her findings in the forthcoming issue of the Thomson Reuters journal Criminal Law Review, Thomas says they demonstrate that decisions about jury trial in the internet age should be based on empirical evidence. In its absence, the debate has become polarised around two extreme positions, neither of which she regards as justified.Presenting her findings in the forthcoming issue of the Thomson Reuters journal Criminal Law Review, Thomas says they demonstrate that decisions about jury trial in the internet age should be based on empirical evidence. In its absence, the debate has become polarised around two extreme positions, neither of which she regards as justified.
Those who might prefer to see an end to jury trial argue that it is impossible to stop jurors obtaining information from the internet. Those who are opposed to media restrictions argue that we should simply "trust the jury" to decide cases on the evidence.Those who might prefer to see an end to jury trial argue that it is impossible to stop jurors obtaining information from the internet. Those who are opposed to media restrictions argue that we should simply "trust the jury" to decide cases on the evidence.
"Blind trust in juries is not just misguided," Thomas writes, "it is not what juries want themselves. The research reported here has shown that jurors are clearly asking for more and better guidance to do their job, they are being clear about what they want and they are being clear that they want it in written form.""Blind trust in juries is not just misguided," Thomas writes, "it is not what juries want themselves. The research reported here has shown that jurors are clearly asking for more and better guidance to do their job, they are being clear about what they want and they are being clear that they want it in written form."
They certainly are. Of those who received written directions from the judge, every single juror found them helpful. Of those who did not, 85% said they would have liked them.They certainly are. Of those who received written directions from the judge, every single juror found them helpful. Of those who did not, 85% said they would have liked them.
But a disturbing large proportion — 82% of those questioned — said they would have liked more guidance on how to conduct their deliberations. This figure is up from 67% in 2010, when Thomas last researched the issue.But a disturbing large proportion — 82% of those questioned — said they would have liked more guidance on how to conduct their deliberations. This figure is up from 67% in 2010, when Thomas last researched the issue.
Asked what sort of guidance they needed, jurors mentioned advice on what to do if they were confused about a legal issue; how to ensure that no one was pressured into giving a verdict; and what to do if something goes wrong.Asked what sort of guidance they needed, jurors mentioned advice on what to do if they were confused about a legal issue; how to ensure that no one was pressured into giving a verdict; and what to do if something goes wrong.
Three-quarters of those questioned said they would tell a court official or the judge if another juror admitted finding information about the defendant that had not been disclosed in court. But 14% said they would not feel comfortable about doing anything at all.Three-quarters of those questioned said they would tell a court official or the judge if another juror admitted finding information about the defendant that had not been disclosed in court. But 14% said they would not feel comfortable about doing anything at all.
As Thomas says, it is crucial to trial by jury that jurors understand what amounts to improper conduct. They must also understand the importance of drawing the court's attention to any concerns they have about it. The internet has some advantages here: it is possible to obtain incontrovertible evidence of electronic communications that, in a previous age, would have involved just a fleeting conversation in a corridor.As Thomas says, it is crucial to trial by jury that jurors understand what amounts to improper conduct. They must also understand the importance of drawing the court's attention to any concerns they have about it. The internet has some advantages here: it is possible to obtain incontrovertible evidence of electronic communications that, in a previous age, would have involved just a fleeting conversation in a corridor.
The way forward is clearly to provide jurors with the documents and support they need to reach a true verdict. Advising on what tools jurors need is, I am pleased to see, is the next part of Thomas's project. She acknowledges that she must plan for a time, not far off, when we shall no longer search for information; computers will know what we want before we do and send it to us unless we order them not to.The way forward is clearly to provide jurors with the documents and support they need to reach a true verdict. Advising on what tools jurors need is, I am pleased to see, is the next part of Thomas's project. She acknowledges that she must plan for a time, not far off, when we shall no longer search for information; computers will know what we want before we do and send it to us unless we order them not to.
For those of us who thought that the hung jury in the first trial of Vicky Pryce must have damaged public confidence in the entire system of jury trial, Thomas has a gentle footnote pointing out that hung juries account for only 0.6% of all deliberations. If her careful research results in more jurors being steered back onto the path from which the internet has lured but a few, we shall be greatly in her debt.For those of us who thought that the hung jury in the first trial of Vicky Pryce must have damaged public confidence in the entire system of jury trial, Thomas has a gentle footnote pointing out that hung juries account for only 0.6% of all deliberations. If her careful research results in more jurors being steered back onto the path from which the internet has lured but a few, we shall be greatly in her debt.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.