When we think about the emotional impact of serious criminal trials, attention naturally turns to victims, witnesses, and defendants. Far less attention has been paid to the ordinary members of the public sitting in the jury box, listening to graphic, often trauma-inducing, evidence of murder, sexual violence, and child abuse, before making decisions that can change lives forever. How is this fair or right? Dr Hannah Fawcett and Dr Matt Brooks, senior lecturers in psychology at Manchester Metropolitan University, write.
The launch of the House of Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee inquiry into juror support this summer was long overdue. Research suggests that although some jurors find the experience rewarding and interesting, others may experience significant distress during and after their service yet support for them remains limited. Kirsty Brimelow KC, chair of the Bar Council, points to juries as “the only part of the criminal justice system that actually works”. Yet while jurors work for justice, justice may not work for jurors.
When we read of high-profile cases in the media, such as Lucy Letby and Baby P, our attention is rightly focused on the victims and their families. But how often do people then consider the jurors who, day-in-day-out, are viewing the images, hearing the upset, and making life changing decisions of guilt and innocence? These pressures do not occur in isolation; jury service can involve rearranging work commitments, finding childcare, and coping with financial uncertainty.
It is unsurprising therefore, that up to 50% of jurors experience symptoms of distress, and 27% have symptoms consistent with post-traumatic stress disorder at three months after jury service. Jurors are the victims hiding in plain sight in the courtroom. As jury service is a state-mandated activity, the government arguably has a moral responsibility to look after juror wellbeing. The government’s 2024/5 pilot Juror Assistance Programme in England and Wales shows that policymakers acknowledge the potential for juror distress. However, since the conclusion of the pilot in spring 2025, there has been no confirmation of plans to renew or develop this service.
This lack of support for jurors stands at odds with approaches to wellbeing for other individuals within the court setting. While victims, witnesses, defendants, judges, legal professionals and even some journalists who sit in on the case can access dedicated support services, jurors remain the only group in the courtroom without specialist wellbeing support.
Unlike victims, witnesses, defendants, barristers, judges, and court staff, jurors have no professional body, support organisation, or collective voice. They serve for a few weeks or months before returning to everyday life. As a result, their experiences are easily overlooked and support needs largely unnoticed.
Jurors are directed to overstretched and non-specialist NHS support services and the Samaritans, despite evidence that jurors are highly unlikely to contact the Samaritans. This means that 94% of former jurors do not access any formal support services following jury service. Jurors are left alone to process their courtroom experiences and manage any resulting distress. Minimising stress for jurors and ensuring they have access to targeted support is also imperative for justice. A juror who is upset and distracted may find it harder to engage fully with the evidence presented to them and could make mistakes. While many people move on from jury service without lasting difficulties, the stresses of jury service are life-changing for a sizeable minority. However, the issue is not whether every juror will need assistance, but whether appropriate support is available for those who do. With roughly 197,000 individuals performing jury service in England and Wales each year, juror wellbeing and support is a public health issue.
The picture is not without hope though. The House of Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee inquiry will report to the Government on the issue, opening the door for much-needed reform to juror support in England and Wales. What reforms are needed? Our work at Manchester Metropolitan University highlights the need for a holistic approach that considers better psychological preparation before service, improving court accommodations, clearer pathways for raising concerns during service, training for court staff to recognise distress, normalising adverse emotional reactions to jury service, better financial support for jurors, space to debrief and adjust at the conclusion of jury service before returning to everyday life, and specialist post-trial support for those affected by their service. While this may seem a long list of demands, the practical and financial implications of several of these approaches is minimal compared to savings in costs to justice and public health.
Trial by jury depends on ordinary people giving their time, taking on significant responsibility, and sometimes being exposed to distressing material. Criminal Bar Association chair Andrew Thomas KC describes trial by jury as the ‘gold standard of fairness’. We suggest that while jurors ensure fairness for others, the treatment of jurors is at present, inherently unfair. Disparate support for individuals in the same courtroom is a problem that needs to be rectified. Jurors help deliver justice for others, and it is time the justice system did more for them.
