Madam, – As a postgraduate student researching the Irish criminal jury I read Elaine Byrne’s account of her jury service with great interest (Opinion, June 30th).
Ms Byrne states that “For the most part, our jury was engaged and earnest in our responsibilities”.
However, her references to the disengaged juror who spent deliberation time on his mobile phone in the toilet and the prejudiced juror who passed a disparaging remark about the accused based on his address are major causes for concern.
English case-law provides a stark catalogue of juror misconduct, and Ms Byrne’s experience confirms what many have long suspected – that our own jury system is not impervious to bad behaviour.
Most criminal law conferences in Ireland now hear justifiable calls for empirical research on juries in this country. The most beneficial form of research would entail the interviewing of former jurors about their service, but the legal position of the researcher in this situation is far from clear, with one school of thought arguing that such research amounts to a common law contempt of court.
There are obvious reasons why jury deliberations should not be disclosed as a matter of course, but an absolute secrecy rule is not sustainable in an era which lauds transparency and the questioning of received wisdom.
To preserve public confidence in jury trials, the Minister for Justice should urgently provide for a statutory scheme governing jury research.
The family courts were once closed to researchers, but the law reforms which made the pioneering work of Carol Coulter possible are an illustration of how bona fide legal research can be facilitated. – Yours, etc,