The Dock on Trial: Courtroom Design and the Presumption of Innocence
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/jols.12033 |
| Published date | 01 September 2017 |
| Date | 01 September 2017 |
JOURNAL OF LAW AND SOCIETY
VOLUME 44, NUMBER 3, SEPTEMBER 2017
ISSN: 0263-323X, pp. 317±44
The Dock on Trial: Courtroom Design and the Presumption
of Innocence
Meredith Rossner,* David Tait,** Blake McKimmie,***
and Rick Sarre****
This article examines the place of the criminal dock in courtroom
design. Challenges to the use of the dock have been based upon the
inability of the defendants to hear effectively, to communicate with
counsel, to maintain their dignity, and to benefit from the presumption
of innocence. Increasingly courts are incorporating secure docks,
where defendants are partially or completely surrounded by glass (or
in some countries, metal bars). To what extent do these changes and
modifications undermine the right to the presumption of innocence?
We present the results of an experimental mock jury study that was
designed to test whether the placement of the accused influences
jurors' perceptions. We find that jurors are more likely to convict
defendants when they are located in a traditional dock or a secure
dock, compared to sitting next to their counsel at the bar table. We
conclude by discussing the implications for trial procedures, counsel
communications, and courtroom design.
317
*Department of Law, London School of Economics, Houghton Street,
London WC2A 2AE, England
m.rossner@lse.ac.uk
** Digital Humanities Research Group, Western Sydney University, Locked
Bag 1979, Penrith NSW 2751, Australia
d.tait@westernsydney.edu.au
*** School of Psychology, University of Queensland, St Lucia QLD 4072,
Australia
b.mckimmie@psy.uq.edu.au
**** Department of Law, University of South Australia, GPO Box 2471,
Adelaide, South Australia 5001, Australia
Rick.Sarre@unisa.edu.au
The work was supported by the Australian Research Council under the Linkage program,
LP120200288, with industry partners including the NSW Department of Justice and
Attorney General, the Western Australian Department of Justice and Attorney General,
PTW Architects, Hassell Architects, Katsieris Origami, and ICE Design. We thank the
anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.
ß2017 The Author. Journal of Law and Society ß2017 Cardiff University Law School
INTRODUCTION
Courtrooms may appear to embody immemorial tradition, an impression
reinforced by the use of arcane rituals and archaic costumes. On closer
inspection, however, courtroom designs can be seen to respond to contem-
porary influences ± pressures of time and budgets, changing attitudes to
human rights, security fears, and the interests of professional groups. Where
different participants sit in the criminal courtroom has changed considerably
over the last two hundred years, and varies by jurisdiction and curial context.
This modern diversity is perhaps most evident in the physical location of the
accused in a criminal trial, which will vary depending upon a range of factors
including the seriousness of the charge and the security risk assessment, but,
most importantly, the jurisdiction in which the trial is proceeding. A person
charged with involvement in organized crime, for example, is likely to be
presented to the court in an open dock in Sydney or Wellington, a glass cage
in Montreal or London, a metal cage in Moscow, or a glass cage inside a
metal cage in Cairo. But in Chicago they will sit at the bar table looking
almost indistinguishable from their lawyers. There is little evidence that
Chicago gangsters are more benign than their counterparts elsewhere. The
difference lies not in the personalities of gangsters, but the legal histories and
design practices of the respective courts.
The use of docks has been contested almost since their inception. Early
challenges were from individual defendants, and mainly concerned difficulty
with hearing and access to counsel. In the twentieth century, groups like the
Howard League for Penal Reform and United Kingdom Law Society
mounted campaigns against the dock, making more fundamental arguments
about due process and the presumption of innocence.
1
In recent times, an
opposite trend has emerged, as courtrooms around the world have seen the
proliferation of `secure docks,' where the accused will be fully enclosed in a
glass dock or metal cage. This significant change to the design and archi-
tecture of the court has not been challenged by the judiciary, the legislature,
nor by the general public.
In England and Wales, a major reform of the court estate is underway.
Courts and tribunals are closing, digitization of court processes is being
embraced, and the very function of a courtroom is being challenged.
2
318
1 L. Mulcahy, `Putting the Defendant in Their Place: Why Do We Still Use the Dock in
Criminal Proceedings?' (2013) 53 Brit. J. of Criminology 1139.
2 See Her Majesty's Court and Tribunal Service, Response to the proposal on the
provision of court and tribunal estate in England and Wales (2016), at
www.g ov.uk /gove rnmen t/con sulta tions /prop osal -on-t he-pr ovisi on-of -cour t-and -
tribunal-estate-in-england-and-wales>; Ministry of Justice, Lord Chief Justice of
England and Wales, and the Senior President of the Tribunals, Transforming Our
Jus tic e Sys tem ( 201 6), a t tps :/ /ww w.g ov. uk/ gov ern men t/p ubl ica ti ons /
transforming-ou r-justice-syst em-joint-state ment>; JUSTICE, Wha t is a Court?
(2016), at
ß2017 The Author. Journal of Law and Society ß2017 Cardiff University Law School
To continue reading
Request your trial