UCL Jury Project

UCL Jury Project 20 Years Of Research Only With Real Juries At Court 1. What we do, how we do it, why we do it the way we do it 2. Juries and sexual offences - the evidence from real juries Myth About Research With Real Juries Criminal offence to: “Obtain, disclose or solicit any particulars of statements made, opinions expressed, arguments advanced or votes cast by members of a jury in the course of their deliberations”. Researched Allowed Allows research on: - - Jury Processes  Summoning & serving  Jury decision-making Jury Outcomes & Impact  Jury verdicts  Juror experiences/needs  Juror attitudes Example Issues Examined by UCL Jury Project 1. Racial bias 2. Representative nature of juries 3. Juror contempt (inc internet & social media use) 4. Juror understanding of law & responsibilities 5. Judicial directions 6. Impact of jury service on jurors 7. Jury deliberations 8. Rape & sexual offences Research Method There are 3 research methods used: 1. Large-scale data analysis Large-scale quantitative analysis of jury trials all charges, pleas & verdicts in all courts (2007-2021). 2. Post-verdict surveys 3. Case simulation Strongest findings are those that are consistent across multiple methods Jury Issues Examined Through Large Data  Volume and nature of charging in Crown Court  Pleas - differences by defendants, offences?  What charges end up in jury trials  What charges end up being decided by jury deliberation  Jury conviction rates - by offence, court, defendant  Hung jury rates  Majority verdicts Most Significant Factor In Jury Conviction Rate Is Offence Highest & Lowest Jury Conviction Rates By Offence 1. Making indecent photos children: 89% 2. Death by dangerous driving: 85% 3. Drug possession w/intent to supply: 84% 4. Murder: 76% 5. Unlawful wounding (s.20): 49% 6. Manslaughter: 48% 7. GBH (s.18): 48% 8. Attempted murder:47% 9. Threatening to kill: 36% Ethnicity & Jury Decision-Making Jury conviction rates by defendant ethnicity 2006-15 (n=392,706) (for Lammy Review). 1. 64%: White 2. 66%: Black 3. 66%: Asian 4. 64%: Mixed 5. 66%: Other 6. 68%: Not Known Immediate Post-Verdict Surveys What can (& can't) we understand from this? Issues Examined With Post-Verdict Surveys 1. Understanding (legal responsibilities) 2. Awareness (media coverage of cases) 3. Views of process (deliberations) 4. Needs (directions, support) 5. Attitudes (being summoned; sexual offences) 6. Experience (of jury service) NOT decision-making Myth About Asking Jurors About Decision- Making Law Commission (2023): "A challenge faced by researchers is that the law prohibits anyone asking jurors about how they reached their verdicts and prohibits jurors from revealing information about that." Fallacy about what hearing about deliberations can reveal. We do not consciously know all the factors that influence our individual decisions. So, we cannot articulate them all if questioned after the fact. Jury verdict is even more complex. It has to combines 12 individual decisions and 1 group decision. Views Expressed In Deliberations Jurors may express views in the deliberating room, but these do not necessarily determine either the juror's individual decision in the case or the jury's verdict Confirmed by New Zealand Research. Y Tinsley, C Baylis and W Young, ""I think she's learnt her lesson': Juror use of cultural misconceptions in sexual violence trials" (2021) 52 Victoria University of Wellington Law Review 464. If any cultural misconceptions were expressed in deliberations, it was not possible to draw conclusions about whether these influenced actual jury verdicts.