The not proven verdict and related reforms: consultation analysis

Jury Size

Key Findings

• A majority of respondents (58%) – across all sub-groups – supported jury size remaining at 15 jurors. The key reasons for this were that the current number of jurors works well and there is no compelling case to make changes and that this jury size allows for a diverse range of jurors in terms of population characteristics and offers a range of differing views and opinions.
• For those who supported jury size changing to 12 jurors (19%), the key themes were that this would bring Scotland into line with other jurisdictions, that it would encourage higher levels of participation and deliberation from jurors or reduce pressure on the jury pool.
• For respondents wanting to see some other size of jury (14%), there was little by way of agreement on what this size should be, although there were consistent comments on the need for an odd number of jurors to enable a majority verdict.

Views on jury size

Q8: Which of the following best reflects your view on jury size in Scotland?

If Scotland changes to a two verdict system:

• Jury size should stay at 15 jurors
• Juries should change to 12 jurors
• Juries should change to some other size

If you selected 'some other size', please state how many people you think this should be.

Please give reasons for your answer including any other changes you feel would be required, such as to the majority required for conviction or the minimum number of jurors required for a trial to continue.

102. As the following table demonstrates, the majority of respondents (58%) supported jury size remaining at 15 jurors. This was consistent across all respondent sub-groups, regardless of organisation type, individual roles or personal experience. Relatively small numbers of respondents supported a change to a jury of 12 (19%) or some other size (14%).

* A total of 17 responses were received from academics; 2 from academic organisations and 15 from individuals who work as an academic or professional researcher on issues related to the justice system.

103. A total of 138 provided commentary in support of their initial response to this question.

Jury size should stay at 15 jurors

104. Two key reasons were given by a significant minority of respondents. The first reason, mostly made by legal organisations, legal professionals and individuals, was that the current number of jurors works well and there is no compelling case to change this.

105. The second key reason was that a jury size of 15 allows for a diverse range of jurors in terms of population characteristics and offers a range of differing views and opinions; that this offers greatest representation of the population and a balance of experiences and prejudices, which help to ensure a fair trial and ensure more rounded and robust decisions are made. An individual remarked:

"The fifteen member jury has served well throughout recent history. Having an uneven number is preferable to an even number as a way of avoiding arithmetical ties. Reducing much below this number would risk losing the availability of such a wide range of views."

106. Some also raised that a jury of 15 allows for some excusals part way through the trial, if necessary, while still allowing the trial to continue, albeit with a smaller jury size.

107. There were comments by some respondents that an odd number of jurors ensures a verdict will be reached. Linked to this, a small number of respondents noted this also reduces the likelihood of a hung jury. Some respondents commented on jury majority and these comments are covered in the following question.

Jury size should change to 12 jurors

108. The key themes emerging to this part of the question, albeit mentioned by less than 10 respondents, were that this would bring Scotland into line with other jurisdictions, that it would encourage higher levels of participation and deliberation from jurors or that it would reduce pressure on the jury pool. There were also a few comments that the benefits of this jury size is backed up by the mock jury research (Ormston et al). In reference to the perceived importance of deliberation, a member of a victim's family said:

"A smaller number of jurors would be beneficial as this gives a smaller number of people time to discuss the facts of the case."

Juries should change to some other size

109. Of the respondents suggesting that juries should change to some other size, there was little by way of agreement on what that size should be, with suggestions ranging from 7, 9, 11, and 13. What was consistent was a need for an uneven number of jurors in order to avoid hung juries and to achieve a majority verdict.

110. A small number of respondents suggested the abolition of juries, with a trial by a bench of 3 judges or a single specialist judge in a specialist court for sexual offences.