Scottish Government

Chapter 9: Comparative Analysis of Juror Questionnaires

9.1 This chapter of the report summarises the comparative analysis of two questionnaire surveys of jurors. The aim of the surveys was to collect information about the experiences of jurors cited to serve in High Court cases both prior to and following the implementation of the reforms.

9.2 The first, pre-reform, survey was undertaken as part of the consultation process subsequent to Lord Bonomy's review. The questionnaires were administered and analysed by Ian Clark and Elaine Samuel on behalf of the Scottish Executive. Their findings were presented in the summary of responses to the consultation (Samuel and Clark 2003, pp. 91-94). The questionnaires in the post-reform survey were also administered by the Scottish Executive but analysed by the research team at Aberdeen. The post-reform questionnaire is reproduced at appendix 3 of this report. ⁹⁸ Response rates and details of the research methods employed can be found in chapter 3.

9.3 For convenience, this chapter refers to all those surveyed as 'jurors'. Except where the context requires otherwise, this term should be taken to include persons who were cited for jury service but not selected. It should also be noted that in some of the tables that follow percentages do not total 100 due to rounding.

Jurors' Attendance at the High Court

9.4 In the first section of the questionnaire, respondents were asked whether or not they were selected to serve as a member of a jury. Table 9.1 illustrates the findings from both samples. As can be seen, the profile of both samples in this respect was very similar.

Table 9.1: Selection to serve as a jury member

9.5 These two groups are examined separately in the following sections.

Potential Jurors Not Selected for Service

9.6 This section of the chapter focuses on those jurors who said they were not selected for jury service but who had attended at court.

Attendance at court

9.7 Respondents were first asked how many days they had attended court before being told that they would not be required for jury service. Table 9.2 displays the responses to this question. The figures indicate a reduction in the number of potential jurors who attend court for more than one day before being told that they will not be required for jury service.

Table 9.2: How many days did you attend the High Court?

Waiting time

9.8 Table 9.3 shows the proportion of jurors who were not selected for jury service on any given day who had to wait for two or fewer hours before being discharged. The table suggests a possible increase in waiting time for potential jurors after the reforms.

Table 9.3: Respondents waiting two or fewer hours

Reasons for non-selection

9.9 Question 6 in both questionnaires asked: "If a jury was not selected, were you always told the reasons why?"

9.10 In the pre-reform sample, "one half" of respondents were told why no jury had been selected (Samuel and Clark 2003, p.93).

9.11 In the post-reform sample, there were only 19 valid responses to this question (excluding three jurors who said that they could not remember whether they had been given a reason or not). Of those, 12 respondents (63%) said that they were given a reason, while seven (37%) said that they had not been given a reason.

What reasons were given?

9.12 Respondents who gave an affirmative answer to question 6 were then asked, in an open ended question, what reasons they had been given.

9.13 In the pre-reform sample, the reasons given "mainly related to changes of pleas or failure of witnesses to appear" (Samuel and Clark 2003, p.93).

9.14 In the post-reform sample no such clear pattern emerged. One respondent said he was told that another trial had over-run whilst another noted that there was "only one trial that week so those not chosen for it would not be needed later". There were two references to necessary persons being absent. Only one respondent stated that a guilty plea was the reason given although another did refer to "procedural difficulties with the plea". A further two respondents mentioned the fact that cases were not ready to start.

Willingness to remain in court for the opportunity to serve on a jury

9.15 The questionnaire asked jurors whether they would have been prepared to remain in court longer "if this would have increased the opportunity to serve on a jury". The responses to this question are shown in table 9.4.

Table 9.4: Would respondents have been happy to remain in court longer?

Those Selected for Jury Duty

9.16 Respondents who were selected to serve on a jury were asked how many days they served. The responses to this are shown in Table 9.5, and suggest a reduction in the average length of trials in the post-reform period. ⁹⁹

Table 9.5: How many days did you serve?

9.17 Respondents were then asked how they felt about the length of the court day. The responses, as shown in Table 9.6, do not indicate a significant change between the pre- and post-reform periods. The vast majority of respondents in both samples were satisfied that the length of the court day was "about right".

Table 9.6: Court usually sits from between 10 am and 1 pm, and between 2 pm and 4 pm. Do you consider this to be too long, too short, or about right?

9.18 Respondents were also asked whether they felt it would be reasonable to ask jurors to sit in court for an extra 30 minutes until 4.30pm. The responses are shown in table 9.7. In both samples, the majority of respondents indicated that they would be happy to sit for an additional half an hour.

Table 9.7: Do you think it is reasonable to ask jurors to sit in court for an extra 30 minutes until 4.30 pm?

Inconvenience, Information and Excusals

9.19 This section deals with questions which were asked of all jurors (whether selected or not) regarding any inconvenience which they had suffered and also applications for excusal from jury service.

Inconvenience caused to jurors

9.20 The pre-reform study found that:

"only one third of respondents admitted to suffering any inconvenience as a result of being cited to the High Court for jury service. There was little difference between those selected and those not selected for service. Inconveniences suffered usually related to the uncertainty of jury service: respondents were unable to plan their work; inform colleagues; guarantee that replacements were needed; or work out childcare arrangements in advance." (Samuel and Clark 2003, p.93)

9.21 The data collected in the post-reform study suggests fewer jurors suffered inconvenience, as table 9.8 shows.

Table 9.8: Did you suffer inconvenience as a result of being cited for jury service?
(Post-reform sample only)

9.22 A number of those who were excused said they had suffered inconvenience in spite of the fact that they may never have attended court. This often related to holiday arrangements.

9.23 On a more general basis, as in the pre-reform sample, many stated that the inconvenience caused was in terms of disruption to their work in some form or another, replacement cover being a predominant theme. One respondent stated that he had just started a new job and was concerned about the effect jury service would have on this. A number of respondents who were self-employed noted that not only did jury service mean loss of income for them but it also had the potential to threaten their business's survival. Other respondents noted that the reimbursement received did not cover their losses. One respondent wrote: "You should not lose money. For instance loss of bonus and overtime and travelling time. The court should pay what you earn for a full day's pay/every hour you work."

9.24 Childcare difficulties also were mentioned in the post-reform sample and reimbursement was also an issue in this context, with one respondent having asked a family member to look after her child for her on the basis she would pay the person for loss of income only to find that the court would only cover expenses for a registered child minder. One respondent stated that her inconvenience was due to organising someone to look after her animals.

9.25 A few respondents commented on the inconvenience of being asked to attend court in the morning but then being sent away and asked to come back later in the day. One respondent who lived in a rural area complained of transport difficulties as she had to travel by public transport. One student complained that he had missed his first week of lectures whilst another respondent was angry that he had had to miss a colleague's wedding.

Could inconvenience be reduced?

9.26 The pre-reform study found that "only one third [of jurors] thought that the inconvenience they had suffered could have been avoided" (Samuel and Clark 2003, p.93). Methods of reducing the inconvenience suggested were "designing a system with greater certainty", "providing a more accurate jurors' message system" and "ensuring that the Crown and Defence were adequately prepared on the day". In the post-reform sample, a slightly smaller proportion of jurors (one quarter as opposed to one third) felt that the inconvenience suffered could have been reduced, as shown in table 9.9.

Table 9.9: Could the inconvenience suffered have been reduced?
(Post-reform sample only)

9.27 Many respondents felt that if they had had better notice of when they were to be required and for how long, this would have reduced inconvenience. Two respondents indicated that a more flexible system would be better with both suggesting that it would be helpful if alternate timings could be offered. One of these noted that "because date x is inconvenient, that doesn't mean I would be unwilling to attend on dates y or z but options are not given".

9.28 Issues in relation to employment also featured in the suggestions as to how inconvenience could be reduced. One respondent suggested that only those employees whose workplace could accommodate their absence should be called upon for jury duty and that self employed people should be exempted. One respondent suggested that teachers should be excluded from jury duty. Issues of adequate reimbursement were also mentioned.

9.29 Some respondents felt the day could have been better organised so that the jury were not constantly being sent out of the court whilst it was noted that better communication from the court would help this situation if it could not be avoided.

9.30 One respondent felt that "ordinary, inexperienced members of the public should not be asked to judge in such trials" whilst another stated the view that jury service should not be mandatory. A number of respondents took the opportunity to express the view that regardless of inconvenience, it was "a job that has to be done".

Jurors' telephone information service

9.31 Jurors in both samples were asked about the telephone information service that is available to inform jurors whether or not they are required the next day. Their responses are shown in tables 9.10 and 9.11 below.

Table 9.10: Did you make use of the telephone service?

Table 9.11: Did the telephone service reduce inconvenience?

9.32 In the post-reform sample, two respondents commented that regardless of the information given on the telephone line, they still had to attend court. This, in itself, was the inconvenience. One respondent noted that the information given on the telephone line was "limited" and that the message merely stated "Jurors 1 to 53 please attend court". This respondent said that more specific information should have been given about times. One respondent simply wrote: "The message was wrong".

Excusal from jury service

9.33 Jurors were asked whether they had applied to the court to be excused from attending. The responses are shown in table 9.12.

Table 9.12: Did you apply to the court to be excused from attending?

9.34 In both samples, health and work commitments were the primary reasons given for seeking an excusal.

Demographic Information

9.35 Tables 9.13 and 9.14 present basic demographic information about the samples. They exclude a small number of respondents who did not answer the relevant questions.

Table 9.13: Gender

Table 9.14: Age

Conclusion

9.36 In many areas, there was very little difference in the experiences of those in the pre-reform and the post-reform samples.

9.37 Some notable differences are as follows. First, the post-reform sample shows a reduction in those not eventually selected for jury service who attended court for more than one day, although there is some indication that jurors may have had to wait for longer before being told that they would not be required.

9.38 Secondly, there appears to have been a decrease in the proportion of jurors who felt that they had been inconvenienced by being cited for jury service (and also in the proportion who felt that the inconvenience they had suffered could be reduced).