Beyond the legal barriers: Institutional gatekeeping and real jury research
| Date | 01 September 2016 |
| Author | Jacqueline Horan,Mark Israel |
| Published date | 01 September 2016 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0004865815577768 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Australian & New Zealand
Journal of Criminology
2016, Vol. 49(3) 422–436
!The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0004865815577768
anj.sagepub.com
Article
Beyond the legal barriers:
Institutional gatekeeping and
real jury research
Jacqueline Horan
Melbourne Law School, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Mark Israel
Faculty of Law, University of Western Australia, Australia
Abstract
Social science research must displace myth, anecdote, and judicial hearsay in directing reform
of the jury system. Drawing on the experiences of researchers from commonwealth coun-
tries, we explore why it has been so hard to undertake research on real juries. We also
identify how the legal and institutional ‘‘barriers’’ might be lifted to facilitate an evidence-
based approach to jury reform.
Keywords
Access to jurors, evidence-based reform, juries, jury research, research gatekeepers
Introduction
The public controversy surrounding the Vicky Pryce trial in the United Kingdom in
early 2013 highlighted how little some countries know about how juries undertake their
work, and how poorly what we do know is shared across jurisdictions. The Pryce jury
was criticized for asking 10 questions that prompted the trial judge to describe the jury as
having ‘‘fundamental deficits of understanding.’’ The prosecutor told the English court:
‘‘This is a jury which hasn’t, it appears, understood its function’’ (Greenwood, Allen,
Gladdis, & Robinson, 2013). The keywords in his criticism are ‘‘it appears.’’ We do not
actually know the extent to which juries understand their function. Instead, anecdote
and populist invective has dominated the public debate. Significant barriers confront
researchers who wish to investigate further in the United Kingdom, Australia and, with
the possible exception of New Zealand, many other commonwealth countries.
Corresponding author:
Mark Israel, Faculty of Law, University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, Western Australia 6009,
Australia.
Email: mark.israel@uwa.edu.au
To continue reading
Request your trial