FEARS THAT all-white juries in England and Wales are guilty of racism have been discounted by the largest-ever survey of jury habits, which examined nearly 70,000 verdicts over two years.
Indeed, the survey for the ministry for justice showed that all-white juries in racially mixed districts are more likely to convict a white defendant charged with assaulting a black or Asian victim.
The only difference between white jurors serving on racially mixed juries and on all-white juries was that white jurors in the first category were less likely to convict defendants coming before them.
Black or Asian defendants are not more likely than white defendants to be found guilty by juries at courts where there is a large proportion of BME (black and minority ethnic) defendants and a very low level of ethnic diversity in the local population. Members of ethnic minority communities plead not guilty more often than white defendants, though the conviction rates for whites, blacks and Asians for two-thirds of all offences are “almost identical”.
Female jurors are tougher on defendants at the start of deliberations, but more likely to change their minds as discussions continue.
Juries in some parts of England are more likely to convict than others, with those in Teesside and Harrow reaching guilty verdicts in 69 per cent of cases, while those in Swansea and Preston do so in 53 per cent of cases.
The survey, carried out by the University College of London, debunked “the myth” that juries in some places rarely convict, showing that there is no area where there are more acquittals than convictions.
On average, juries convict in almost two-thirds of cases, and even in cases of hung juries – which occur less than 1 per cent of the time – they manage to reach a verdict on at least some of the charges before them.
However, they are more likely to convict on lesser charges – 89 per cent of the time. The proportion of guilty verdicts drops dramatically for more serious offences, with manslaughter prosecutions succeeding on 36 per cent of occasions.
Juries are most likely to convict when they have clear evidence before them, such as the existence of indecent photographs or evidence of drugs possession with intent to supply. High conviction rates also attach to cases of dangerous driving causing death.
However, the number of guilty verdicts falls when juries are faced with deciding on a defendant’s intentions, or state of mind: threatening to kill (36 per cent), common assault (41 per cent) or attempted murder (47 per cent).
Non-fatal attacks against a victim such as aggravated assault are, curiously, the least likely to result in a jury conviction but even in these juries reach guilty verdicts more often than not, with a rate of 52 per cent.
Equally, a defendant’s chances of getting off fall dramatically if the Crown Prosecution Service lays multiple charges: four in 10 cases where one charge is levelled result in prosecution, but the proportion rises to eight in 10 if a defendant faces five charges.
“Despite the popular belief that juries are reluctant to convict in rape cases, defendants are more likely to be convicted of rape (55 per cent) than for attempted murder (47 per cent), manslaughter (48 per cent) or grievous bodily harm (48 per cent),” the report found.
Meanwhile, jurors over the age of 30 are more likely to check up on details about an accused on the internet than their younger counterparts, while a fifth said they found it difficult to put pre-trial publicity out of their minds.