An 88 page report [PDF] by Professor Cheryl Thomas of UCL for the UK Ministry of Justice asks Are Juries Fair? in examining whether all-white juries discriminate against what it characterises as "black and minority ethnic" (aka BME) defendants. The report also asks whether juries rarely convict on certain offences or at certain courts and whether jurors understand legal directions, are aware of media coverage or look for information on the internet about cases.
The report draws on a multi-method approach: case simulation with real juries at Crown Courts (involving 797 jurors on 68 juries); large-scale analysis of all actual jury verdicts in 2006–08 (over 68,000 verdicts); and post-verdict survey of jurors (668 jurors in 62 cases).
It found little evidence that juries are unfair but identifies "several areas where the criminal justice system should better assist jurors in performing this vital role". The study also demonstrates that section 8 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 (UK) does not prevent comprehensive research about how juries reach their verdicts and that research from other jurisdictions should not be relied upon to understand juries in the UK.
In exploring decision-making at the jury verdict level Thomas found that the verdicts of all-White juries did not discriminate against BME defendants. Jury verdicts at showed no tendency for all-White juries to convict a Black or Asian defendant more than a White defendant. Local population dynamics may play a role in jury decision-making.
The study also examined the votes of individual jurors who sat on juries, with the report concluding that White jurors serving on racially mixed juries and on all-White juries had similar patterns of decision-making for White, Black and Asian defendants. White jurors on racially mixed juries had lower conviction rates overall. White jurors in a racially diverse area (Nottingham) appeared sensitive to cases involving inter-racial conflict. These jurors were significantly more likely to convict the White defendant when he was accused of assaulting a BME victim compared to a White victim. No similar trend was found with White jurors in Winchester. White jurors serving on all-White juries did not racially stereotype defendants as more or less likely to commit certain offences based on race. The same result was found with both White and BME jurors serving on racially mixed juries.
The only other personal characteristic that appeared to affect juror decision-making was gender. Female jurors were more open to persuasion to change their vote in deliberations than male jurors. Male jurors rarely changed their mind.
