Jury trial defects exposed

By ANGELA GREGORY

Legal researchers have pointed to major defects in the New Zealand jury system and reveal that judges disagreed with verdicts in half the cases studied.

Their research, which also found that jurors widely misunderstood aspects of the law, will provoke strong debate about the way trials are conducted.

The researchers, led by Professor Warren Young, of Victoria University's law faculty, studied 48 trials - involving everything from murder to fraud - over nine months last year.

Interviews with judges and jurors showed just 24 trials in which the judge agreed with the verdict.

In a further 11 trials where jurors returned verdicts at odds with the view of judges, the researchers found the jury finding was reasonable on the evidence presented. In one case, they decided the jury had made a more appropriate assessment of the evidence than the judge.

In the remaining 13 cases where judge and jury came to different conclusions, the researchers found five trials involving multiple charges produced compromise verdicts; three trials were classified as perverse or questionable, leading to two acquittals and one case in which an accused was wrongly convicted; and five trials ending in hung juries.

Among the other major findings:

* Many jurors were uncertain what "beyond reasonable doubt" meant.

* Jury sympathy or prejudice affected the outcome of six trials.

* Where judges and juries differed, it was often over assessing the credibility of key witnesses.

* A small number of jurors did not understand English well enough.

* Men were more likely to be selected as foremen than women, and seemed to do a better job.

* Jurors had difficulty recalling oral evidence.

Professor Young said many juries had significant problems trying to understand evidence, the law and how to apply it.

The research did not call into question the integrity of jury trials, but there was room for improvement in the way evidence was presented and legal advice was given, and how foremen were chosen.

Professor Young said problems came from the way trials were run, not a lack of juror competence. "Jurors took their duties very seriously ... and by and large were extraordinarily conscientious."

While some hung juries were caused by a prejudiced or rogue juror, in other cases a hung jury could avoid an unjust result.

Gary Gotlieb, a spokesman for defence lawyers, said he was rarely shocked by jury decisions.

"Three dodgy results out of 48 is not bad, but it would be cause for alarm if they had all been convictions."

An Auckland crown prosecutor, Simon Moore, said he had complete faith in juries. Most verdicts were fair, and judges could overturn a verdict when they were sure there was a travesty of justice.