26
Examination of witnesses
Dr Hannah Fawcett and Dr Matt Brooks.
Q1 The Chair: Welcome everybody to this very first public evidence session on support for jurors, an inquiry we have been looking forward to. We know that there are quite a lot of good ideas out there based on much of the evidence we have already received in writing and we are grateful to both our current witnesses for already having written to us. As I explained earlier, we may go over some points that you have raised but that gives us an opportunity to have further questions about those points. Before we begin, can I ask you both to just introduce yourselves?
Dr Hannah Fawcett: I am a senior lecturer in psychology at Manchester Metropolitan University. I have spent the last 20 years researching jury service, juror decision-making and the impact of jury service on well-being. Matt and I are the founders of Juror Appreciation Week in England and Wales.
Dr Matt Brooks: I am also a senior lecturer in psychology at Manchester Metropolitan University. I have expertise in trauma and have been undertaking research for about the past eight years including resilience and strengths-based approaches to well-being and helping people recover from trauma. I have been working with Hannah for five years or so on this juror project.
Q2 Lord Bach: Welcome to you both. This is a nice, general question to start off with. In your views, how does jury service affect people and what aspects of being a juror most affect them? An added question is what proportion of people who take part in jury service are affected in these ways and is that measured at all? The main question is how does jury service affect people?
Dr Matt Brooks: The jurors can report a wide range of symptoms after jury service. Most research is generally focused on symptoms of post-traumatic stress. That can include symptoms such as nightmares about the experience, flashbacks and intrusive thoughts. It can involve avoidance of discussion or avoiding television programmes with court situations. It could leave people feeling on guard and impact them negatively in terms of their social relationships as well.
Some research that Hannah and I have done with mock jurors has shown that post-traumatic stress symptoms can increase quite dramatically over a very short-term period of seven days. That is not to say that those symptoms will persist. The trauma research suggests that most people can recover naturally after these experiences, so we are not saying that jury service is inherently traumatising but for a significant minority of individuals these symptoms will persist. As many as 50% of jurors internationally report distress after jury service, largely focused on post-traumatic stress and depression.
The sources of distress can include the courtroom environment and being in an unfamiliar setting such as the courtroom waiting areas; some research has found that it can be distressing if they are not comfortable and accessible. It can also be the trial type, particularly cases involving murder, sexual abuse or child victims. That is not to say that only those cases involve greater distress because it can be reported across a wide range of trial types, even fraud and burglary. Deliberation with jurors is probably the most stressful aspect of jury service, given the research. We do not know much about what goes on in the deliberation room but jurors report distress from that situation. The weight of responsibility—deciding the fate of an individual—can place quite a weight on people. There is also the occupational aspect: the fact that they are losing money, there are expenses and they are away from their family and friends and not able to talk about their experiences, which I am sure we will come on to later.
Dr Hannah Fawcett: To echo what Matt said, our work definitely shows that jurors take their responsibility incredibly seriously; they want to reach the right decision and make a difference. That is a huge responsibility when the verdict that they reach has ramifications for the defendant, complainants, victims, families, communities and society. It is a huge burden that jurors take on, and they are trying to juggle that alongside other commitments that they have, concerns about how it might impact their work with them being away, and concerns about paying for childcare and fitting it in around routines. It can be a big concern.
The graphic evidence is undeniably stressful, but it is not the only stressor that we see jurors reporting; they find it stressful because of a range of different things that can accumulate to cause a stress reaction. As Matt says, it can reduce over time for a lot of individuals, but some research from the USA shows that although it can peak immediately after jurors have done their jury service—their distress is at the highest point—it can then reduce a little, only then to have a delayed reaction several months later.
For some people, they may not immediately feel that distress; it may come later on, further down the line. For some, it may naturally tail off, and some may not feel any distress at all. It can vary quite a lot. It is quite difficult to get figures on how many are distressed because it depends on what point you are looking at within that juror journey.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich: I have a short supplementary. Is there any evidence that juror distress—if I can call it that—is any more intense or widespread in certain age groups or between men and women?
Dr Hannah Fawcett: There is a little research. It has not really looked at age; we do not really have much evidence around that. Certainly, there is some evidence that suggests that personal characteristics that people bring into jury service can impact their experience of that service. There is some research evidence that suggests that, on average, women find jury service more stressful than men. That might be due to a variety of reasons, including higher levels of empathy and being more likely to have caring and childcare commitments that are disrupted through doing jury service. It may also be linked to the personal experience of female jurors and their experience of victimisation, and maybe they can identify further with complainants within cases.
We know that jurors who have a history of mental health difficulties or prior exposure to trauma are more likely to experience negative mental health after they complete jury service. This can happen quite quickly. In our research, we had our participants exposed to real trial materials very briefly, and in the course of seven days we saw a huge increase in the proportion of our participants who were reporting signs of distress consistent with post-traumatic stress disorder. Some 11% were coming into our research having symptoms from other events in their lives, and within a week that had increased to 44%. Having exposure to these difficult case materials can have a big increase very quickly on people’s mental health.
Q3 Lord Hogan-Howe: I thought your papers were really helpful in setting out the clear potential around some of the damage that can be caused for jurors, particularly in the short term; it looked like there was an immediate impact. There is obvious potential and you described some circumstances in which that potential materialises.
What I was less clear about is what the medium- and long-term serious health effects are and whether you have any evidence around that. In other groups, for example witnesses to traumatic events who have to give evidence in court, may be similarly affected. I was interested to know what the medium- and long-term more serious harms are.
Dr Hannah Fawcett: There is not an awful lot of research that has done long-term follow-ups with jurors to track how they respond over time. We have done some research where we have asked people who have experience of jury service; some have very recent experience and others have experience from many years or decades in the past. What we have seen from that data—our research and the research of others, predominantly research from America—is that people can still be affected decades down the line with some of the symptoms that Matt mentioned earlier: the disrupted sleep, flashbacks and avoidance of situations that might remind them of what they experienced in court.
Dr Matt Brooks: To add to what Hannah said, and going back to your initial question on the true mental health impact, we do not really know the true extent of the impacts that jury service has on individuals because it is not systematically measured; there are no widespread national surveys. Within the research that is out there, they might just be using self-report questionnaires, and there are some interview studies in a more limited number. The discussion is not just on post-traumatic stress disorder; there are likely some relational impacts within the family and friends and concerns about employment. There is not very much research out there—certainly in England and Wales—at the moment.
Q4 The Chair: Before we move on—we will have to move on a bit quickly, but this is the first opportunity to get started, so I apologise that we keep coming back on these issues—there are three quick things. First, could you give us a bit more of an indication of the percentage of jurors who are impacted in some way or other? I appreciate entirely that we will come on to a question about research in a minute, but there are some people who we just do not pick up because it comes much later down the track. I appreciate the difficulty, but what percentage of jurors have some sort of negative impact as a result of jury service?
Dr Hannah Fawcett: The main research paper on this was a review of lots of different papers in this area and they concluded that around 50% of jurors experience signs of distress. Some individual studies have slightly higher estimates, some have slightly lower, but 50% is the rough figure.
The Chair: That is very helpful. Secondly, we always talk about negative impacts. Are there any positive impacts of jury service that we should be aware of?
Dr Hannah Fawcett: What is interesting in the work that we do is that, despite the fact that it can be difficult, the vast majority of people appreciate doing jury service. They feel it is an important civic duty and feel glad that they have had that opportunity to fulfil that duty. A lot find it very rewarding and feel like they are making a difference to society. Some—including some we have worked with—find meaning and positivity through the work that we are doing in contributing to the research and trying to change things for other jurors as well. They can find meaning and purpose through trying to change the supports that are available for other jurors.
The Chair: Again, accepting the almost impossibility of being able to give an answer, what percentage of jurors would you estimate get some positive benefit from jury service in the ways you have described?
Dr Hannah Fawcett: Off the top of my head, I cannot remember the exact statistic, but I know the majority of jurors certainly report that they felt that their experience was worthwhile.
Dr Matt Brooks: At the start of our written evidence, there was a study by Cheryl Thomas in 2020. About 58% of jurors in that study found the experience to be educational. That was the highest proportion and that was a positive impact.
The Chair: Perhaps you can write to us with more detail afterwards. I am sorry to go on but I have one final question. On a number of occasions, you referenced the fact that a lot of the research is from America, and we will come on to other jurisdictions later. I am trying to get a sense of how much recent research into this field is actually out there. You are obviously doing a lot. How much else is there?
Dr Hannah Fawcett: Not an awful lot of research has been done. Part of that is because, as academics and researchers, the rules around jury disclosures certainly make a lot of academics very nervous about researching in this area, to make sure that we are not breaching those rules. There are a couple of research papers that one of our colleagues has completed over the last 10 years or so, and there are several papers that we have published and are working on at the moment. To our knowledge, there are not very many other people working in this area. We have to use a lot of data from other jurisdictions and apply the findings that they have across to our legal setting.
Q5 Baroness Berridge: Can you outline for us what mitigations are put in place for those who may be or are affected by jury service? What mitigations would you recommend? In particular, could you also comment on any comparables with mitigations for other people involved in the criminal justice system?
Dr Hannah Fawcett: At the moment, after people finish their jury service in this country, they are signposted to talk to their GP, the NHS 111 service and the Samaritans, if they are experiencing difficulties and distress. They are currently the only signposting and support services that are offered to people who complete jury service. In comparison, there are support services and helplines available to other professionals within that court environment and exposed to the same materials. There are support services and helplines available for legal professionals and the judiciary, but not for jurors.
Baroness Berridge: You have talked about mitigation afterwards. Is there anything available before the trial or any highlighting if there might be cases that are particularly difficult?
Dr Matt Brooks: From our courtroom observations of 15 Crown Courts last year, it is very much on an ad hoc, case-by-case basis; there does not seem to be a consistent approach. We saw some courts offering pre-trial visits, such as walks around the courtroom to get familiar with the space. If there were jurors with additional needs, they were taken into consideration as well. When we were shadowing the jurors, the emphasis was really on the juror proactively making that distress or those concerns known. In a room full of potentially 200 other jurors in a waiting room or in front of the judge and other legal professionals, it can be quite a daunting experience for that juror to do that.
Baroness Berridge: What are the particular avenues if a juror is experiencing distress during the trial? Where are they signposted to go during the trial?
Dr Hannah Fawcett: It initially relies on the juror making that distress known to court staff. Matt mentioned the work that we have done with the observations, which we did for the Ministry of Justice, following jurors around as they went through their day-to-day jury service. We also talked to a lot of court staff, and it very much came through that there is a difficulty that court staff feel in that, if jurors come to them and say, “I’m really struggling”, they are very limited in the support that they can offer to that individual.
Our experience shows that those jurors are then told, “Do you feel able to continue? Do we need to speak to the judge about whether you need to step away from the case?” Or, “I’m really sorry. Have a cup of tea, take a breath and then just carry on”. The support there is limited. Certainly, in our experience, court staff are very keen to provide that support. They want to help, but their hands are very much tied because there is not any official avenue for them to support during the course of the trial.
Baroness Berridge: Are there accepted reasons for the jurors not to take part once the trial has started? If you can remember because I cannot, how many jurors can we lose from the 12 before you no longer have a jury? That might also be a pressure of not stepping back.
Dr Hannah Fawcett: Certainly, the jurors themselves are not aware of how many they can lose. We have had conversations with jurors who have said, “I was very much struggling and I went to my GP and said, ‘I am struggling’. They said, ‘Well, I can perhaps write you a sick note’”. I do not know if that works in court; I do not know the process. The juror felt like they were unaware whether the trial would collapse if they stepped back, so they felt that they needed to continue on that trial because they did not want the trial to collapse and everybody to have gone through the difficulties for no reason. I certainly do not think jurors are aware of those things, which is the most important thing in that situation.
Dr Matt Brooks: To turn back to the question about what avenues they have, they are able to defer as well. They can defer on the basis of things such as medical appointments or surgery, which I have seen, or pre-planned holidays. Particularly if the juror is on a long trial, they are given long-trial questionnaires that ask, “Are there any reasons why you can’t serve on this trial over this period of time?”, and they can be excused. That is very much to the discretion of the judge.
Baroness Berridge: That is all beforehand though, is it not?
Dr Matt Brooks: Yes.
The Chair: Before we move on, can I be absolutely clear? From what you said, if I am a juror, the only help I can get is almost certainly after the trial finishes and the help I am signposted to is my GP, the amazing 111 service or the Samaritans.
Dr Hannah Fawcett: Yes.
The Chair: However, if I am not a juror but I am a member of the court staff, there is a very clearly well-established support system available. Presumably you can help direct us to details of that; we will not go into it now. We are clear that it is considered important by the authorities to have proper support service for court staff but not for jurors.
Dr Matt Brooks: Yes.
Dr Hannah Fawcett: Yes. The court staff have a number of different organisations that they have put together themselves to provide peer support networks for dealing with that upset and distress.
The Chair: Can I just follow that up? Not only have you very kindly given us some evidence already but we have also had evidence from a number of other people talking about the need for additional support of one sort or another, details of which we will perhaps come on to in a few minutes. For how long has it been known that there is an urgent need for more support for jurors? Is this something we have just stumbled on that has been known for a very long time and nobody has done anything about, or is it a new finding?
Dr Hannah Fawcett: That is a very difficult question to answer. One challenge is that jurors are very much a hidden, transient group; their very nature is that they go, do their jury service for a couple of weeks or a month, and then go back to their everyday life. There is no one there who is consistently saying, “This is really challenging and difficult. We need more support and things need to change”. They are very much hidden and do not have a voice. Some research that has been going on in the States for the past 10 or 15 years has acknowledged that jury service can be stressful. As I say, that same research has not really happened in this country up until about 10 to 15 years ago. I could not say how much the Ministry of Justice has been aware of that research in the past.
The Chair: Is this a failure of the researchers in this country not to be pressing their research to the court service? Are you at fault for not doing more to publicise your research and make something happen?
Dr Hannah Fawcett: We have been working on this project for the past few years. As soon as we started on this project, we made contact with Baroness Berridge and held a meeting here at Westminster to bring together a range of different people with an interest in jural well-being, mental health and support, which included representatives from the Ministry of Justice and the Courts & Tribunals Service. Since that point, Matt and I have been meeting regularly with people from the Ministry of Justice and the Courts & Tribunals Service, sharing our research and working with them to help them understand what it is like to be a juror and some changes that the evidence suggests would be beneficial to jurors. We have certainly been doing the best we can for the last few years. Prior to that, I do not think there was very much contact.
The Chair: We will perhaps pick that up in greater detail separately.
Q6 Baroness Hughes of Stretford: You have largely covered some areas that I was going to ask about around support for jurors. Perhaps I could just recap and ask you if this is an accurate summary. Before a trial starts, there are no specific support services available to jurors; they might get procedural advice and some logistics and all that. During the trial, they can talk only to fellow jurors about the case, so there is no avenue there. Post-trial, there are also no juror-specific services; people are directed to counselling and available GP services as would the general public. That is a summary.
I know you are aware of the post-counselling pilot that MoJ did. I will not comment on it until you have, but from what I know it seems to be very difficult. That showed a very low take-up of people who were accessing the support that was provided during that pilot study, did it not? Would you like to comment on that?
Dr Matt Brooks: For some observations that we have done around the Crown Courts, a few were involved in that pilot programme. Some fed back that perhaps signposting to the support was not consistent. In some circumstances, they might put support information on a table in front of other people, and we know with the stigma around help-seeking, people might be very reluctant to be seen to be taking that information, so there could be that aspect as well.
It could also feed back to what we were saying at the start of this meeting in that some jurors might not realise immediately that they need the support. There is some mixed evidence in terms of debriefing people immediately after trauma, because it can actually exacerbate symptoms in some individuals. Others might just need a bit more time to decompress and reflect on the experience before coming back.
Dr Hannah Fawcett: Introducing any new support system such as this can take time to embed. In the courts that we visited and spoke to, not everybody was aware of the pilot, so not everybody was actively signposting jurors to that service. There were definitely some challenges around jurors being aware of the service, how they accessed it and when they could access it, to take into consideration that delayed response. Human nature is that when we go through something difficult, we expect we will find it difficult and that we might have a few sleepless nights. It is maybe only further down the line when they think, “Actually, this isn’t getting better; I’m not recovering from this”, that they actually want to reach out and access those professional services. At that point, maybe it is several months down the line, they do not have the contact information anymore and the pilot had ended. There are different challenges there.
The evidence that we see from similar schemes elsewhere shows that not everybody who does jury service will want or need to access these services; it is not for some people for whatever reason. Those who use these services find that they have a meaningful impact on their well-being and that they help them to cope with the challenges they are experiencing.
Dr Matt Brooks: To add to that, even though not everybody will take up the offer of support, just knowing that it is available is a source of reassurance and comfort for them. That is something that has been fed back to us particularly from the court staff.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford: Jurors have to self-refer to access the service. They might not have known about it because the signposting was not great. We are told they were able to have up to six counselling sessions, if they did access it. Who gave that support? What kind of people provided the counselling?
Dr Hannah Fawcett: It was an organisation that has experience of providing counselling but not necessarily specifically to jurors. They were contracted by the MoJ. I would have to look up the specifics outside this meeting.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford: Was there a time limit following the end of the pilot after which jurors could not access that service or was it open-ended while it was going on?
Dr Hannah Fawcett: I do not know whether that was communicated to jurors.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford: There was a very low take-up, but of those who did take it up, there was a positive impression and people felt the benefit of the service.
Lord Dubs: I wonder if I could ask a supplementary. I suppose we are conscious that jurors will hear the most dreadful crimes and so on, and most questioning is on the assumption that that is the situation. What about the more ordinary, day-to-day stuff? Some people will come from jobs where they are used to engaging and discussing and so on. Other people may not do that. Even if it is something where there is no violence involved, they may not feel comfortable about that sort of conversation. Is that an issue?
Dr Hannah Fawcett: Yes. It is a very unknown environment for a lot of people. You may get people who actively avoid true crime or watching the news and anything graphic and upsetting, and they are forced to confront that material and discuss it in detail to make a reasonable decision. People are brought together in a room, and they have to reach a consensus even though they perhaps come from very different backgrounds, experiences, personalities and temperaments. That is a very difficult discussion to have where the outcome is really important and has a big impact on people. It is incredibly pressured.
Even where the actual case itself may not have been graphic or distressing—it may even have been slightly boring, dare I say—the actual deliberations can still be incredibly difficult. That is why, when we talk about support for jurors, it is not just for those who are on the graphic sexual abuse or murder cases; it can be for jurors on any case, who can find it difficult because of the deliberation and disruption to their work and routines.
Q7 Baroness Berridge: Maybe this is a question for you, Matt. We now know a lot about trauma and the whole body’s response to that. We know what we are talking about here, which is secondary trauma, not the police person at the actual scene. In another context, if you are an organisation and have employees who are reading reports of trauma and looking at pictures—they might be an NGO—what do we know now, from the evidence, that you should do as an employer to help that person in their daily work? What should we be putting in place, from the evidence that we have of response to secondary trauma?
Dr Matt Brooks: From observations, we know that jurors are very concerned about the impact on their employer and how the employer will respond. In some cases, the juror has to return to work the same day if the trial finishes in the morning and they are thrown back into this environment where they are just expected to carry on as normal. We know that there are some support programmes, but we know from the broader literature that this support needs to be specific and tailored. The generic support is there but it is actually more beneficial if it is more specialist. We have seen that in other jurisdictions as well, which I am sure we will come on to a little later; I do not want to jump ahead.
Baroness Berridge: When should that support be then? Could you take us through the process?
Dr Matt Brooks: To come back to Baroness Hughes of Stretford’s question in terms of time limit, the support should not be time limited. As we know, jurors can experience distress months and potentially years after the trial has ended and it needs to be ongoing. It does not need to be specific to a trial type; that is why we are very keen to say it is not just the cases involving murder, sexual abuse and so on. It should not be limited to a specific number of sessions, because some people naturally might take a bit longer to process; some people might just need one or two sessions and just a bit of a pick-me-up to help them process what has happened and someone to speak to.
Baroness Berridge: That is all during and maybe after; what about before?
Dr Matt Brooks: Before, more psychological preparation is needed. As we have alluded to, jurors generally receive procedural information about where to park the car and expenses but very limited information about, “You might experience this during the trial. You might be exposed to some graphic evidence. There may potentially be some challenging jurors that you might be working with who have different personalities”.
They need some information just to prepare them so they know what to expect but also potentially some psychoeducational skills to help them manage some immediate stress reactions that they might experience. It could be things such as mindfulness or something instilled by the court, such as having more regular breaks in particularly challenging trials. There really need to be some minimum standards and guidance for judges and court staff to put in place these accommodations for jurors on these trials.
Q8 Lord Anderson of Ipswich: You have given some pretty detailed evidence already, in writing and orally, about what information is provided to jurors before, during and after their service. If there have been any gaps, please fill them. If you have any other ideas about what you think ought to be said by way of information, now is your chance. Having heard you on that I shall ask a couple of more specific questions, if I may.
Dr Hannah Fawcett: One thing that can be very helpful when we are talking about preparing people for going through a difficult experience is normalising some responses that they may have. We can say, “If you are on this case, it is normal that you will find some information quite difficult and that it may affect you in this way or that way. You may have some sleepless nights and it may play on your mind”. Knowing that you are not going through it alone—even though you may not be able to talk to other people about it—helps you to put that into perspective.
We have spoken to jurors who have said, “I was really struggling and everybody else around me seemed fine”, because nobody wanted to say, “I’m really struggling”. Knowing at the outset that what you are actually going through is a normal response, that for most people it will probably improve, and that although it is difficult now you will probably find it gets easier but, if it does not, there will be some support available to you further down the line when the trial is finished can really help people to manage their experience while they are in the moment.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich: What is the best way of getting that across? When I used to sit as a Crown Court recorder—you can tell me whether this is still the case—jurors would be shown a short video before they began their jury service. I do not recall that it contained much of that sort of material. Would that be the place for it, or is it better imparted human to human? If so should it be the jury bailiff or the judge? What do you think would be the best, most effective way of doing that?
Dr Hannah Fawcett: Our experience is that jurors can often form quite a lovely relationship with the court staff, ushers and jury officers. They are seeing them day in, day out, taking them in and out of court and spending time with them. It is perhaps those individuals who are best placed to be able to share that information. It is making sure that it is consistently done in every single court.
The video that is shown to jurors at the outset of their service is quite long. Our observations of jurors watching it suggest that it may not be the most riveting of videos and to extend that with more information might not be the best approach when they are sat passively hearing information for a long period of time. Working with court staff around what is the best way to deliver that information would be needed.
Dr Matt Brooks: We do not want to overburden jurors with all this information. I recognise there is a tension about preserving the jury pool as well. We do not want to have people not taking part in jury service because they might perceive that it is going to be traumatising, so it has to be very carefully managed in consultation with the court staff.
The amount of information at different points in the trial seems to work quite well. Rather than overloading jurors right at the start with lots and lots of procedural information about the entire trial, trying to break it down at different points seems to work better. Even during the trial, having some information available to jurors about some coping strategies and things they could use or what they could potentially do just to manage any immediate stressful reactions they might have in the moment would be very useful.
Q9 Lord Anderson of Ipswich: Just a couple more if I may, Chairman: one about the role of the judge and one about the role of the CPS and prosecuting counsel. Of course, it is the function of the judge to manage a trial. A good judge would certainly be alert to what is happening or what might appear to be happening in the jury box. The judge has a bible, the Crown Court bench book, which should give them the necessary guidance about what to say, when to say it and what to be alert to. Do you think that bench book—to the extent that you have looked at it—is adequate in the guidance that it offers judges, or do you think there is room for improvement there?
Dr Hannah Fawcett: There is definitely room for more of the recent research that we have been doing that has come out over the last 12 months to be incorporated into guidance for judges, to make them more aware of the impact that cases can have. Some research that we have seen suggests that judges are very aware that graphic evidence can impact jurors but perhaps they are not aware of some other surrounding factors that can influence jurors.
They may not always be attuned to when jurors are in distress because jurors are trying to put on a brave face to get through things. Jurors have said to us, “I didn’t want to break down in the jury box because what right do I have to get upset when the victim’s family’s there? They have a right to be upset, not me. It didn’t happen to me”. Judges may not always see those active signs of distress to know when to intervene and put in those breaks, even when jurors are feeling that distress. Certainly, some more guidance and education based on our recent research could be beneficial.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich: If you have any specific suggestions on the Crown Court bench book, please let us know in writing. We would be interested to hear them. Finally—I am sorry to have gone on so long—on prosecutors, you cite some research in your most useful written evidence suggesting that graphic evidence is associated with lower thresholds for conviction and a tendency towards guilty verdicts. I am afraid that confirms the prejudices of many of us who have served within the criminal justice system.
Are you aware of any CPS guidance or guidance that would operate on the minds of prosecuting counsel when taking the decision about how much graphic evidence in a personal injury setting, and the degree to which it is horrifying, should be placed before the jury? Although by no means unique, it seems that that is a major factor that contributes to jury distress. Are you satisfied that the right balance is being struck between presenting the case fairly to the jury and being mindful of not overdoing it, if I may put it that way?
Dr Hannah Fawcett: Our recent research has shown that when it comes to graphic evidence, it is not just about presenting graphic evidence but it can be the way that that evidence is presented to jurors. When presenting evidence of physical trauma to a victim’s remains in different formats—for example, photographic evidence of autopsies compared to computer modelling of the injuries compared to printed models—there are differences in the levels of distress associated with exposure to those different modalities. The evidence is suggesting it is not just about the overall amount and frequency of graphic evidence, but actually we may need to go back and think about the modality and how we are presenting that evidence in order to present it in the least distressing format. As for the guidance that is out there, my understanding is that it cautions judges around gratuitous use of graphic materials in a general sense.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich: It is not really judges who need to be cautioned, is it? It is the prosecutors. What I am wondering is, if there is any guidance to prosecutors on this subject, whether you would like to have a look at it and perhaps suggest ways it might be improved.
Dr Hannah Fawcett: We would have to have a look at that outside this meeting and then come back on it. Certainly, we know that there is research from Denmark, I believe, where prosecutors were given graphic evidence and asked how they would use it and their perceptions of it. Many recognised that these 3D printed models of a murder victim’s remains could be incredibly graphic and that they would potentially use those in court to elicit a response. Even if, technically, they were not necessary in order to help the jury understand the injuries and how they were sustained, they may be a useful way of heightening the jurors’ emotions and getting them on side. There is certainly some evidence that some prosecutors may be inclined to use evidence in a way that is maybe not necessary and appropriate.
Q10 The Chair: Can I just confirm that before the trial, a juror does not know what the nature of the trial is?
Dr Matt Brooks: That is right.
The Chair: I appreciate the point Matt has made about maintaining the jury pool, but would it make sense to provide information about the nature of the trial before a jury is sworn in, so that people who are potentially very likely to suffer harm as a juror could excuse themselves?
Dr Hannah Fawcett: When jurors attend for jury service, they are over-recruited, so there are lots of jurors. Then there is a separate pool where they are selected to go on particular trials. There is a potential that the 12 that you randomly select may know the defendant or a witness or have some reason that they cannot sit on that trial, so they again over-recruit. They are either given a questionnaire or the judge asks them in court, “Do you know any of these names of people involved in this case? If it’s a particularly long case, is there any reason why you couldn’t be a juror for the next four to six weeks?”
In our experience, we have not seen judges at that point say, for example, “This is a sexual assault case; if you have a reason that may be personally difficult—you have had experience of sexual victimisation in the past—please say”. It is not explicitly said. Jurors may have an opportunity to say, “I think I would find that very difficult”, but in a lot of instances that would require them to stand up in open court, walk across to the judge and explain their circumstances while in a court with the prosecution team, the defence team, the defendant and the other 20 to 30 potential jurors there. Although in theory there is an opportunity, in reality it is very difficult circumstances for somebody to disclose personal circumstances that may make it difficult for them to be a juror on that case.
The Chair: Presumably, much of the trauma that we are talking about that can affect a large number of jurors is as a result of their particular relationship with the nature of the crime that is being considered. Therefore, does it not make sense to you, with the research you have done, that there be a system where you could more clearly give jurors an opportunity to explain why certain types of trial would cause them particular distress and to do it in a way that does not require them to stand up in front of the rest of the jury pool and anybody else in the court to resolve that particular issue? Surely, prevention of trauma would be far better than putting in place lots of measures to deal with it after the event.
Dr Hannah Fawcett: Absolutely. We are certainly not saying that anybody with a history of victimisation or sexual violence should not be allowed to be a juror on this type of case. What we are very much saying is it would be beneficial for people to have a choice. Some jurors, despite their personal history, will want to be a juror on that kind of case and may not have an increased stress reaction. For some, it will be very difficult; for others, it will not. Choice is really important in the development of trauma and avoiding retraumatising people. Giving them a meaningful opportunity to disclose where they think it may be difficult would certainly be of benefit to jurors.
The Chair: Surely, it is not just a meaningful opportunity but an opportunity to do it confidentially, basically.
Dr Hannah Fawcett: Yes.
Dr Matt Brooks: Yes.
Lord Bach: Can I come back on that a bit sharply? Would potential jurors not abuse that system if it was as simple as the Lord Chairman has just put it? In other words, “Oh, I don’t really want to be here at all. I certainly don’t want to be doing this case, so I’ll say something that may not be entirely accurate, just to get out of it”. People have always been trying to get out of serving on juries in different ways since time began. Would they not do that if we became so careful that we believed absolutely every word they said when they objected to being on a certain trial? Would it not also take away the random nature of who the jurors are in a particular case? Can I pose that to you? It is quite central.
Dr Matt Brooks: I want to come in on the randomness point. We are not saying that there should be a blanket exclusion for people who have had personal experiences that are similar to the case that they will be going through. Actually, some research suggests that they can make better jurors, because they have that life experience. It preserves the diversity of the jury as well. We would not recommend a blanket exclusion based on that.
Dr Hannah Fawcett: You are always going to get some individuals who do not want to do jury service. Most research out there shows that the vast majority of people are in favour of jury service, take it very seriously and appreciate the opportunity to make a difference to their community and wider society. Undoubtedly, there may be a few who will do that but I would say that the evidence suggests that the majority would still take that role seriously. It is about how that opportunity is framed to jurors and the understanding around it. Rather than, “If you don’t want to do it, just say this”, it should be a very real and serious discussion to explain, “We don’t want to upset anybody. If you feel it will be too difficult, please let us know”.
However, a lot of people, regardless of their history, may find doing these cases is still beneficial and rewarding for them. It is about how it is framed rather than necessarily that you would just lose all your jurors. At the end of the day, it is still the judge’s decision as to who is excluded and who is not when it comes to that final selection.
The Chair: Clearly, this is an issue we will have to go into in more detail but we will have one final word on this issue from Baroness Berridge and then we will move on to Lord Moraes.
Baroness Berridge: Is it not the case here though that somebody who is excused—they have been a victim of rape and do not want to sit—would be reallocated to other cases, rather than excused from jury service per se? You are probably not going to have people just use it, because they are just going to be reallocated to something different.
Dr Hannah Fawcett: Absolutely. It is not the case that they would say, “Because you have been a victim of rape in the past, you cannot be a juror at all”, but maybe, “We wouldn’t put you on a rape case and actually, you might enter the pool for that fraud case instead”.
Q11 Lord Moraes: Could I ask you specifically about the rules around jurors discussing the details of trials? I am just reading up on this and seeing that you have done some very precise work on it. The rules are very tough and then social media and contempt rules add to that. It is up to two years in prison. I guess that is not happening very often but what is happening in this space and what effect is it having on jurors?
Dr Matt Brooks: From the Juries Act 1974, the jurors can discuss what has been mentioned in open court but never what has been discussed in the deliberation room. This can have a knock-on effect in terms of seeking support if there was support available. It also poses challenges for GPs, the NHS, Samaritans and other support services in terms of how to navigate these rules. What we are seeing is that there is a lack of clarity in terms of what can and cannot be discussed without breaching those contempt of court rules and that can actually deny support that could have been provided if the rules were a bit clearer around that.
Dr Hannah Fawcett: It makes jurors feel very reluctant to reach out for support, because they take those rules very seriously. They are very concerned that they may say the wrong thing or disclose something, so it is easier just to say nothing at all and not talk about any element of the jury service, because then they know they are not going to get into trouble or get it wrong. It is a huge challenge in terms of seeking and gaining support, and not being able to talk about it is a huge part of the experience that is difficult and the source of that distress.
We are completing one research study at the moment where we spoke with counsellors working in private practice around their experience of working with jurors. They were reporting a lot of reluctance and concern around, “Well, I don’t know what I can say to them or what they can say to me. How will it affect that therapeutic relationship if I have to say, ‘Stop, we cannot talk about that’?” A main tenet of that counselling is that you can share and disclose everything, so it could be quite a big barrier in that way.
Something that we would like to see is a change to those rules so that within the context of counselling—a therapeutic setting—jurors could talk about any aspect of their experience. That would very much help them with their recovery. There is precedent for that in other countries as well.
Lord Moraes: It is interesting what you say about the fear factor of people closing down. You have called for reform to the disclosure rules with a therapeutic exemption, which they have in Canada and Australia but not here. My first question about this therapeutic exemption that you have asked for is, is it broadly justified? Are the numbers of distress indicating that we should do that? Secondly, what effect would it have and can it really be delivered?
Dr Hannah Fawcett: As we say, part of the reason for low uptake when the counselling pilot was done was around that signposting and awareness and probably uncertainty around what they can and cannot disclose within that setting. By changing that law, it is unlikely, given the data that we see from Australia, with the uptake rates of those counselling services, that every single juror is going to be accessing those, but we know that a good proportion do and that they find it helpful in dealing with the distress that they experience. I cannot speak to all the practical and logistical challenges, but from a psychological perspective, it will be beneficial for individuals to be able to speak about every aspect of their service in order that they can get a proper, full support service.
Dr Matt Brooks: To add to what Hannah said, in line with a change to the law around the discussion of deliberations, we would need clearer guidance for mental health and medical professionals in terms of navigating those types of conversations with jurors.
Lord Moraes: There would not be widespread uptake, but you would recommend a therapeutic exemption.
The Chair: Could I just ask about the therapeutic exemptions that exist elsewhere? If I imagine myself on a jury, I am finding that the evidence before me is causing me a great deal of distress and I reach out for support and help, the chances of actually getting any help during the length of the trial is about zero, is it not? With the current absence of helpful support rapidly in the UK, what is the point of having a therapeutic exemption?
Dr Hannah Fawcett: It goes alongside our other recommendations around putting in place that support service for jurors, and coupled with that, lifting that exemption so they can talk about all that they experience.
The Chair: I just want to be clear that it is not just the therapeutic exemption you are calling for but the separate provision of a support system that is available immediately, not in three months’ time or whatever it might be.
Dr Hannah Fawcett: We are calling for jurors to be able to access a dedicated service where they can talk about any aspect of their service immediately or three or six months down the line.
The Chair: I am sorry to ask you; it is just very helpful to have it formally on the record.
Dr Matt Brooks: I will just add that that would also be in line with the pre-trial preparation that we have previously discussed.
Q12 Lord Empey: Where does responsibility lie for ensuring the well-being of jurors? Is it at the individual or state level and where should it be? I know that you have made remarks in your written evidence, but again we need to get some things on the record. Could you deal with that?
Dr Hannah Fawcett: Jury service is very unique in that it is not a job or an occupation; it is a service that individuals are compelled to do and only in the strictest circumstances can they defer from that service. All the experience of jury service is something that is controlled by the state, that they are forced to do by the state, and the resulting distress, for those who experience it, also comes at the behest of the state. In that way, it can be argued that it is a state responsibility to provide for the well-being of those who are compelled to do jury service.
As I say, in some other countries, practice has been changed: the state has made provision to look after the well-being of people who do jury service in those countries. There have been a few cases, as we were discussing earlier, where individuals have taken legal action against the state for the distress they have experienced as a result of jury service. Internationally, it is acknowledged that it is a state responsibility.
Lord Empey: Matt, are you of the same view?
Dr Matt Brooks: Absolutely, yes. I have nothing to add to what Hannah said.
Lord Empey: You also made comments about the physical surroundings of the courts themselves, where the juries are physically located. We know that a lot of court buildings are falling to pieces and the facilities are very unsatisfactory, to put it mildly. Lord Bach made a fantastic comment there about the randomness of the jury. There is a difficulty if we weed out this one, weed out that one and weed out the other and what we actually have is not a cross-section of the community as a whole.
Coming to the point about the responsibility, you are saying quite clearly that it should be a state responsibility, and a referral to a GP, who may or may not have any experience at all, is a walking-away thing really, is it not? You are very clear that the state has a role and you are saying that the state should provide a service before and after. I am not quite clear where we are in the middle, but that is another matter. You are very clear that there needs to be a line that we can draw on a chart to say who is doing what. Of course, the question that arises is what capability the state has to do it. You are very clear on where the responsibility lies.
Q13 Baroness Berridge: Can I just ask a quick supplementary? You mentioned the other factors that are affecting jurors. From shadowing and going around a number of Crown Courts, do you think the state of the buildings has any effect on our jurors?
Dr Matt Brooks: Absolutely. In some older courts, there were some additional challenges. We observed jurors using the same entrance that the defendants and their families were using, so they were passing by the members of the family. There have been instances in the news where people have come into contact with the jury and felt quite afraid of those encounters.
Also, in terms of accessibility, some court buildings had broken lifts. In one court building, I observed a juror on crutches having to be escorted up the stairs and they were visibly struggling. They could not use parts of the building, because it was not accessible, so they had to reallocate the trials to specific courts. In terms of the waiting areas, some lacked basic facilities for jurors, such as food; the canteens had been closed since Covid and had not reopened.
There was some good practice I want to emphasise. Some courts we went to had games, books and things like that for the jurors to bond in the waiting areas, access to food and wifi and very supportive messaging around. Whereas other courtrooms had lots of posters up about, “You must not do this, you must not do that”, so immediately jurors do not feel valued and respected. They are being asked to do something that many do not want to do and then they are being told again what they cannot do. That can present additional challenges as well.
Dr Hannah Fawcett: It is not necessarily that that court environment itself is going to give somebody PTSD, but you have that cumulative impact of, “I’ve heard graphic evidence and I’m really struggling. I’m getting pressure from work to get back after my jury service. I’ve come out of a very intense session in court and I’m sat on broken chairs with newspaper clippings of, ‘Here are jurors that have been sent to prison for breaching the rules’”. It is overheated, it is going to exacerbate stress rather than relieve it, and it can just have that cumulative impact.
As Matt said, we have been in some courts that are beautiful old buildings, but they are not wheelchair accessible, because they are so old. People are told, “Well, if you want to do jury service you have to travel X number of miles to a different court because you can’t do it here”, which again is difficult for people who want to do their civic duty and be involved and are prevented from doing so by that court infrastructure. There are a number of challenges there that make it difficult to be a juror and mean that when you come out of a very difficult, intense session, you are still in a stressful environment.
Lord Dubs: Before I come on to my main question can I just lob in an extra one? Are you satisfied with the way in which jurors are now selected? There were laws about this 30 or 40 years ago, with something called jury vetting going on. Are you happy that the system is okay now?
Dr Hannah Fawcett: I do not know whether we can comment on that system; we are not fully aware. Our research focuses on the mental health and well-being of people who do jury service rather than the selection process.
Q14 Lord Dubs: What lessons can be learned from other common law jurisdictions? I know there has been some work done in Canada, Queensland, Ireland and so on. Various efforts have been made. Would you like to comment on the international situation?
Dr Hannah Fawcett: There have been great strides made in some other jurisdictions. Particularly in Canada, a lot of that change has come through individuals who have completed jury service, found it incredibly difficult and then campaigned and worked to try to change things based on their experiences. There have been a number of initiatives in Canada, including mental health training to help court staff be more aware of and sensitive to individuals when they are struggling and help them respond in a way that will support those individuals, as opposed to exacerbate any distress they may be feeling.
There are peer support schemes as well. Some people may not want formal counselling; it just may not be for them. Peer support can be very good; talking to somebody who has been through and experienced a similar thing to you can be very helpful. There are also counselling schemes where individuals can talk about their experiences with a qualified practitioner, and changes to the law to allow them to talk about all aspects of their service. Those are the main things that have been done in Canada and elsewhere to help support juror well-being
Dr Matt Brooks: Just to add to what Hannah said, they also launched a Jury Appreciation Week in Canada; that is why we took that model and set it up in England and Wales. It is just to have a bit more of a national conversation around jury service, recognise the important work that jurors do and thank them for their time as well. We had support from the MoJ and HMCTS in 2024 and 2025 for that; they had posters about it in courtrooms around the country.
Dr Hannah Fawcett: Going through a difficult experience of something that is hidden and you cannot talk about is challenging. Knowing that people are saying, “I may not know exactly what you’ve been through but I really appreciate jurors in general. They do a wonderful job and we appreciate what they do”, can help you put your difficult experience into context and give it more meaning, which can help with coping and recovery from that.
Another point to add around international support is that something that is very difficult for jurors is the financial aspects of jury service. Again, I know some work has been done in Canada to try to raise the expenses that jurors can be paid, because that is a big concern. I have seen at first hand, jurors in tears and broken down about, “I’m struggling financially to continue on this long trial, but if I walk away, will the trial continue after eight or nine weeks? Is it all going to be scrapped and start again?” That pressure of the finances and people not being able to get their usual level of wages to cover their day-to-day expenses is a huge concern for a lot of individuals. As I say there is precedent from Canada of efforts to raise those expenses to better meet jurors’ needs.
The Chair: You said you got support for Jury Appreciation Week 2024 and 2025. What happened to 2026?
Dr Hannah Fawcett: We did not work with the MoJ and HMCTS this year because of the changes around jury service that were going through Parliament.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich: You mean they were reluctant to engage with you?
The Chair: You “did not engage” implies that you decided not to. I want to be absolutely clear: did you request the continuation of Jury Appreciation Week in this current year, 2026, and they refused the funding for it?
Dr Hannah Fawcett: It was not funding; it was lending support and promoting materials around the Crown Courts.
The Chair: Did they specifically say no?
Dr Hannah Fawcett: They said that they would not be able to do that this year.
Lord Bach: As you say, there was the ambition then—I do not know about now—to change the jury system quite appreciably in terms of criminal trials. One can understand, if not accept, what the department was doing and how you were completely innocent in all this.
The Chair: Tactfully put, Lord Bach. We are very impressed with your loyalty to your party; it is very good.
Lord Bach: I am not saying that I supported it or did not support it, I am just saying that that was a factor in it not happening this year.
The Chair: I know. I am pulling your leg. Baroness Berridge and then we must move on to a really crucial question from Lord Hogan-Howe.
Baroness Berridge: I know we have heard that for many people, it is really positive—I have done it myself and it is really interesting—but can you give us some effects aside from the PTSD? From your research, have you come across other people who end up with effects for a long period of time, end up off work and that has an impact on the employer? I know it is a small minority of people, but do you have evidence of a long-term effect?
Dr Matt Brooks: I was going to say that most of the research has been concentrated on PTSD symptoms, probably because they vary; you can have the nightmares, the avoidance, the negative mood, depression and so on. In terms of the other impacts, I would say that they are largely unknown. For example, there are the relational impacts on family and friends and impacts around employment. Again, there is not much research on how employers navigate having their employees serve on jury service. These are some questions that we would like to explore, going forward.
Q15 Lord Hogan-Howe: It seems to me that you have helped to shine a light on a probably unfashionable part of the criminal justice system, around jurors and their experience, and that has been really helpful. Particularly, you were talking about what the usher’s focus is. It seems to me that sometimes the usher’s focus is on the administration of the court rather than the professionalisation of juror care, training perhaps, and access to longer-term counselling services. This is your opportunity I suppose—you have touched on it throughout the last hour and a half—to say what recommendations you would want us to make to the Government now. The general rules apply: obviously the longer the list, the less likely they are to happen. What has your experience shown you would make a real difference in the coming year or two?
Dr Hannah Fawcett: In our written evidence, we provided 11 recommendations that we feel would be beneficial for jurors. They include preparation materials for jurors before they start; training for staff to support jurors while they go through their jury service; having those formal, meaningful opportunities for individuals to disclose why serving on a particular trial may be particularly challenging for them and a request to be allocated to a different trial; minimum standards around accommodation for jurors, in terms of their breaks, the facilities that they have access to and so on while they are in court; and making sure that that graphic evidence guidance is updated so that they are not unnecessarily repeatedly exposed to graphic evidence that is not actually benefiting their understanding of what happened within that courtroom setting.
Dr Matt Brooks: Going back to the previous comments around the core infrastructure buildings, I recognise that is very costly. I want to state the importance of the small things as well. Jurors really value the recognition via government support for Jury Appreciation Week just to thank them for their support and the important role that they play. That came across in the observations with the court staff. The small, meaningful interactions counted a lot more than necessarily the big, costly changes that could be recommended.
Dr Hannah Fawcett: Rolling out that specialist support service so that jurors can access counselling services after they finish their service is very important. Longer term, we would like guides to jury service for employers. We have had anecdotal conversations with jurors who talk about pressure from their employers to get back to work and trying to juggle doing work while on jury service.
We have also had feedback from jurors about finishing jury service at 11 o’clock in the morning and then being back at work that afternoon and how difficult it is to switch off. There is no buffer between finishing your jury service and returning to work; it may be the same day or the next day and they have all that difficult information to process and come to terms with. Education and guidance around employment and return to employment is very important.
Dr Matt Brooks: We also need to review the expenses, because they have not been updated for many years.
Dr Hannah Fawcett: The disclosure rules need to be reviewed as well. Those would be the recommendations. As Matt said, some are quite low cost. Some of the work interventions and staff training are really basic things that would make a real difference to jurors. We have seen examples where jurors are referred to throughout their service by a number, not their name, and little things like that are really dehumanising when you are going through a very difficult time. Small things around educating court staff on how to talk to people, recognise their mental health and interact with them could make a real difference to that day-to-day experience of being a juror.
Lord Dubs: Do you think there is something lacking in the culture in that employers are not sufficiently aware that this is a civic responsibility? I draw an analogy with Mountain Rescue, which is very localised. The mountain rescue volunteers are normally given lots of time off, because in an area like the Lake District, the employers know that this is all part of the local community and it is very important. There is not that sort of culture that transcends employers as a whole.
Dr Hannah Fawcett: No. As I say, the work that we are doing around Juror Appreciation Week is raising societal awareness of what it is, how important it is and that jurors need the time to be able to do that service. I do not think there is necessarily that understanding and recognition by employers. We have spoken to jurors who have said, “I did X number of weeks on a really difficult child abuse case, went back into work and all my colleagues were going, ‘Oh, you’ve had a good skive off; I’ve been picking up your work while you’ve been gone’”. It is just not like that. Some education and awareness would be really beneficial in helping them transition back into employment.
Lord Hogan-Howe: As you have gone around the country and visited various courts, have you found any accredited national training or standards for ushers and jury officers to help them understand what is expected, or is it inconsistent and based entirely on what each court prefers?
Dr Hannah Fawcett: In our experience, no member of staff talked to us about a formal training programme that they had had. A lot talked to us about it being very ad hoc, on-the-job training. Several, particularly in smaller courts, talked about having to inhabit multiple roles: one day, they were the jury officer; the next day, they were an usher. They were rotating through, because one member of staff on holiday or sick meant they were doing different roles and they were picking those up as they went through.
Staff also talked to us about quite high turnover within those juror-facing roles, which poses some challenges around training, handover and so on. We were certainly not made aware of any national programme or standard around training, but we can certainly see that there would be great benefit to jurors, and probably the court staff themselves, in feeling more confident and competent in dealing with some situations if they were given more comprehensive training on some aspects. What we really emphasise is that a lot of the work of being an usher or a jury officer is a customer service role; it is interpersonal skills around reassuring individuals and being a friendly face, as much as getting people here and there and that system-based role.
Dr Matt Brooks: I am aware that some court staff might have visited other courts to learn some good practice in terms of what they were doing, but I have not seen a consistent approach across all courts.
Q16 Lord Empey: Earlier, you mentioned simple things that the jury are subjected to, such as notices that they felt were negative. Is that common? Presumably, the message can be got across in a less aggressive way; is that what you are saying?
Dr Hannah Fawcett: It is very much drummed into jurors: every day they are in court, they are told at the end of the day, “Do not talk about this with anyone”, there are posters around waiting areas and they are told at the end of the trial. They take it very seriously. In some courts that we saw—certainly not all—it was much more so, as I say, with examples of newspaper articles where jurors have been prosecuted and so on, which was the first thing jurors saw as they walked into those jury assembly areas in one court.
Lord Empey: If you happen to have any of those, it might be helpful to have them sent to the clerk, if you could do that.
The Chair: One issue that was raised by Lord Anderson some time ago was around the briefing to the CPS prosecution and so on about how they handle themselves in a court. He suggested that they need to be guidance and advice. Ever since he raised it, I have been pondering the issue of how that constrains their ability to prosecute the case in the way they believe is the right way on behalf of CPS, which is doing it on behalf of the public. Can you just expand a little more? I am sorry; it is a very niche issue, but it has been worrying me.
Dr Hannah Fawcett: There is always a tension between presenting the evidence, following due practice, seeing that justice is done, and supporting the well-being of the jurors as much as possible. There is always going to be that tension. The research that we have done shows that for certain types of evidence, there is a way of presenting them that is less distressing. To present the fact that somebody has suffered a blunt force trauma to the head, there are a variety of different ways that that evidence could be put forward in court.
Our research at the moment is showing that one way of doing that is slightly less distressing to jurors than the other ways. There is potential for us to share those findings on that specific point, but also to work with prosecutors and the CPS to help them understand the challenges. We are psychologists, not prosecutors or legal professionals, so we would not want to say “You should not do this”, or “You cannot do that”, because we are not in a position to be able to make those recommendations.
However, what we would say is, “Please be aware that if you are presenting this type of evidence, it is more distressing than that type of evidence. Please be aware that jurors report that the more times they are exposed to that evidence, the more difficult it is. Is there a minimum number to achieve your point and your goals, beyond which point it is more gratuitous to try to change emotions?” It is more around those conversations and awareness than anything written down to say, “Do this; don’t do this”.
The Chair: We will have an opportunity with some other witnesses to pursue this. I have to say I need some help on this. Perhaps Baroness Hughes is going to help me or raise another point.
Q17 Baroness Hughes of Stretford: It is another point, and I am sorry to come in right at the end with this, but it has been chewing away at me. I feel that all the issues we have talked about are important in terms of juror well-being and what can affect it, but it seems to me that the elephant in the room is the deliberation experience. You are coming into a situation with 11 people who you do not know and having to negotiate the social dynamics and different personalities.
We have had a written paper by way of evidence that theorises what the difficulties might be, and I know from some conversations with friends who have done jury service that all sorts of things can happen. You can have people who are very outspoken and tend to lead the discussion and make comments about the defendant or the complainant that other people are intimidated about challenging. All those dynamics must play out and can have a big impact on the outcome, but also on jurors’ experience of the jury process. Has there been any analysis or research at all—without discussing individual cases—on those sorts of dynamics in the deliberation room, because of the block on saying anything about what happens in there?
Dr Hannah Fawcett: No. All we have is data from America and from this country that says that the deliberations are coming through the research as one of the most challenging aspects, because of the weight of the decision and the worry that you have got it wrong. In high-profile cases, it is after you have made your decision and finished your jury service that you see online, “They got it wrong; they’ve reached the wrong decision”. There is a lot of pressure and difficulty there.
We understand that some work has been done in Scotland to change the law to allow some research to examine juror deliberations, so that research can access those deliberations. That is in order to understand some variables a little better and be able to understand what jurors may need to help them in those deliberations to evaluate the evidence accurately. As of yet, no research has been granted those permissions to look at that.
The Chair: I am enormously grateful to Baroness Hughes for raising the issue, but on that particular point, do you believe that such research would be helpful?
Dr Hannah Fawcett: Yes.
Dr Matt Brooks: Yes.
The Chair: I just wanted to have it on the record.
Q18 Baroness Berridge: You mentioned different types of evidence. We know that moving images are much more common now in criminal cases, through mobile phones. From your expertise and evidence, does seeing moving images have a different impact on people than, for instance, the oral description by a witness, and what are the different effects?
Dr Hannah Fawcett: The research evidence shows that both oral testimony and visual materials are distressing and can be associated with signs of distressing jurors. However visual imagery is more distressing and more likely to be associated with juror distress than oral testimony.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich: Is that moving images or still images?
Dr Hannah Fawcett: Most research has looked at still as opposed to moving images. It has generally looked at images of injuries sustained by victims, as opposed to video footage of assaults and sexual assaults taking place.
Baroness Berridge: Do we need some research about the effect on people of moving images?
Dr Hannah Fawcett: Absolutely.
The Chair: We must bring it to a close. Thank you both very much indeed on behalf of the entire committee. Some of us are complete novices and have learned a great deal, not only from what you wrote in advance of this session but from the conversations that we have had. A number of my colleagues have slightly more experience than I have, but I am sure that they too have found it extremely valuable. On behalf of us all, thank you very much indeed.
