One of the great mysteries of our criminal justice system is what happens when the jury is shut away in the deliberation room considering its verdict. Centuries of received wisdom holds that trial by jury is the fairest and safest means of deciding between guilt and innocence. But if we haven't done the research to support this universally recognised truth, how can we be so sure?

 

A survey published last week by the Courts Service has now thrown a little more light on the experience of jurors who were asked to gauge their own satisfaction of the court process. Researchers for Mori found that nearly 90 per cent of jurors polled were either very or fairly satisfied with their overall treatment by the Jury Central Summoning Bureau (JCSB).

 

Ninety-nine per cent of jurors were satisfied that they received their jury summons in good time, 91 per cent found it easy to complete, 97 per cent found the accompanying guidance helpful and 90 per cent received a response to their summons in good time.

 

As soon as the questions start to get interesting the survey comes to abrupt halt. Would it really have offended the rules of contempt to ask an anonymous juror whether they had been satisfied with their own contribution to justice or even whether they thought the judge had given them clear directions? Such omissions gives the impression that the Courts Service has missed a trick. Or could it be that there is just too much at stake to risk any tampering with the jury system?