Michael Zander KC (Hon) is Emeritus Professor, LSE. His many books include 'Zander on PACE – The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984' (9th edn, 2022). He has been a member of the Home Office PACE Strategy Board since it was established in 1971. The citation of his Honorary Degree from King's College (2010) said: ‘The central mission of his professional life has been to make the justice system work better’. In 2015 he received the Halsbury Lifetime Contribution Award. His first article for the 'Criminal Law Review' was in 1967, 59 years ago. At 93, he is still writing and publishing.
‘What the Crown Court Study tells as to whether Trial by Jury is Fit for Purpose’ is the title of Professor Zander's article in the current issue of the Criminal Law Review – read the full article here.
I conducted the Crown Court Study* as a member of the Runciman Royal Commission on Criminal Justice (1991-93). It was I think the largest study ever carried out in the courts of this country. The report has been completely forgotten. It has, however, recently become freely accessible online.
The basis of the study was every completed case during two-weeks in every crown court in England and Wales, save the three courts used in the pilot – some 3,000 cases including over 800 trials.
Long questionnaires were distributed by court clerks to the judges, prosecution and defence barristers, CPS, defence solicitors, police, jurors and defendants. Questionnaires not collected in the courtroom, were returned in stamped A4 official envelopes. Despite their length, the response rate from each category except defendants was more than satisfactory: 22,000 questionnaires, including over 8,000 from jurors.
A feature of the study was to ask respondents to assess the work of the other actors. I was surprised by how broadly positive they were – even convicted defendants.
I believe that the findings of this study conducted more than 30 years ago are as relevant today as they were then.
The 274-page report of the study covered many other topics but because of the current concern over the government’s plans, this 'Criminal Law Review' article is about the findings that relate to trial by jury.
Did jurors understand and remember the evidence?
The jurors thought that they understood and remembered the evidence - and the prosecution and defence barristers thought that the jurors would have had no difficulty in understanding and remembering the evidence.
How long did the jury deliberate?
Over three-fifth of jurors said their deliberations took under two-hours and nearly 90% said they took under 4 hours. (There are no official figures as to the length of jury deliberation. The average length of contested trials in 1991 was 6.6hrs. The current statistics showing length of case around 11hrs are not comparable as they are based on all hearings – pre-trial, trial and post trial.)
The judges, barristers, CPS, defence solicitors and the police were asked whether they thought the jury’s verdict was surprising in light of the evidence: the judges, prosecution and defence barristers and defence solicitors said they thought the verdict was surprising in under a fifth of cases. The CPS and the police thought it was surprising in around a quarter of cases.
Acquittals occasioned more surprise than convictions – though not for defence barristers and defence solicitors: the judges found the verdict surprising in 4% of cases ending in conviction, but in 25% of cases ending in acquittal. This suggests that if the government’s plan to replace a high proportion of trials by jury with trial by judge alone will lead to fewer acquittals.
Respondents were then asked whether they thought the jury’s verdict was understandable in light of the evidence or explicable even though against the weight of the evidence: overwhelmingly they all, including the police, thought the verdict was understandable in light of the evidence or was explicable even when it was against the weight of the evidence. The proportion who thought it was inexplicable varied from a high of 8% (the police) to a low of 2% (the judges and defence solicitors).
The judges and the barristers were asked whether they thought trial by jury is a good system. Four-fifths (79%) of the judges and nine-tenths of the barristers (prosecution barristers 89%, defence barristers 91%) thought the jury system was Good or Very Good. Under a tenth thought it Poor or Very Poor (judges 8%, prosecution barristers 4%, defence barristers 2%).
The jurors were asked the same question: four-fifths of the jurors (80%) rated the system 'Good' or 'Very good'. Only 5% rated it 'Poor' or 'Very poor', with the remainder having no opinion. The proportion of jurors who found it 'Poor' or 'Very poor' was the same for all age groups.
The findings are an endorsement of the value of trial by jury.
*Michael Zander and Paul Henderson, 'The Crown Court Study', Royal Commission on Criminal Justice Research Study No.19, HMSO, 1993, 274pp)