Chamber and committees

I will try to draw some points out from what Mr Duffy has already said. The experience that you recounted about your participation as a jury member is insightful and brings further weight to the long-term argument that you, your wife and your family have pursued with such vigour and distinction.

However, it strikes me that your argument is, essentially, that the not proven verdict is a product or symptom of a lack of clarity in the judicial system. Is that a fair summary? You made a powerful plea for us not to bother defining it but, in a sense, because it cannot be defined, it can mean almost anything.

You used the term “middle ground”, and that might be the best way of explaining people’s view of the verdict. Whether we like it or not, there is an encouragement to believe that the not proven verdict is a middle ground, but it is not: it is on one side of the line, because it is essentially equivalent to being found not guilty. That has the potential to create confusion in the jury room about what people are feeling and about the conclusion that they come to.

So you can see the argument for a reduction in the size of juries, but a higher threshold for conviction.

What concerns would you have about the triangle of issues——jury size, majority versus supermajority and not proven—that I just mentioned? Would you simply not put them in that framework? Would you encourage me to stop thinking about them in that way?

Thank you for that. Last week, when we took evidence from the academics who were behind the jury research, I was struck by their argument about the interaction between jury size, the question of a majority versus supermajority within a jury and the presence or absence of the not proven verdict, and we laboured over the relationship between those three factors.

Essentially, Sandy Brindley has just put on record the question whether the correct decisions have been arrived at, as opposed to whether we are making a change here by abolishing the not proven verdict, on which Mr Duffy has made his beliefs clear.

Are we answering that question alone, or a hypothetical question about how we maintain convictions at the current level as opposed to what may be the correct level?

In relation to the research work that you undertook, I would be interested to hear whether any differences in perspective or substance of view on the question emerged between the jurors in the sexual assault mock trial and those in the non-sexual assault trial.

Our panellists have commented on the unanimity provision that exists in certain other jurisdictions. I am interested in understanding why our tradition is one of majority rather than one of unanimity.

Let us say, for the sake of argument, that the Government’s proposal prevails and that the majority would have to be eight out of 12. You have expressed some reservations about whether that is the appropriate balance. The question that I am airing is: would the committee need to be mindful of other issues, if the Government was intent on pursuing that approach, in order to maintain confidence in the criminal justice system?

That is exactly what I am getting at.

Can I interrupt you for a second, Professor Leverick? That is not what I am asking—