John Scott QC comments on the importance of the research into Scotland’s jury system announced this week.

“How on earth did the jury reach that verdict?” A question asked occasionally, usually in the aftermath of an acquittal in a high-profile case. Thanks to some research which has been commissioned by the Scottish government, we may start to understand the way juries reach their decisions. Such research has taken place in other countries but no so far in Scotland.

Having defended and, more recently, prosecuted before juries for almost 30 years, my impression is that juries get it right most of the time. I know that many of my colleagues share this view.

On those occasions when jury verdicts are questioned, it is often because reporting of cases involves an incomplete and sometimes inaccurate account of evidence heard by the jury.

The research will consider the unique features of the Scottish jury system - the sometimes controversial “not proven” verdict; 15 people on a jury for criminal trials, as opposed to 12 or even 6 elsewhere; and the requirement for only a bare majority (8-7) for conviction of the most serious charges.

Commissioned after a detailed review of the safeguards necessary to secure fair trials, the research may help us understand how our current safeguards are used by juries to reach the right verdicts. The research is important because, despite serious concerns, the government seems intent on abolishing corroboration which has been described as a cornerstone of hour system. At least it is now acknowledged that we cannot simply abolish corroboration without a fuller examination of the way our safeguards work together to prevent miscarriages of justice. If corroboration goes, we will need to ensure that the remaining safeguards are strengthened, or new ones introduced. This could involve, for example, an increase in the majority required to convict (possibly to 10 or 12).

Any changes to our system of justice should be about guaranteeing or improving fairness - not merely designed to increase number of convictions or save money at the expense of justice - and should be based on what we learn from the research.

The research will also look at how information is conveyed to juries. It may be that we should provide more written guidance. In one six-week murder trial in which I appeared, the judge gave a PowerPoint presentation of certain key parts of his charge (directions to the jury) - this should perhaps be considered for more cases, along with handouts.

Given recent and proposed changes to the presentation of evidence, particularly that of children or vulnerable witnesses - with far greater use of pre-recorded testimony - it will be valuable to see what the research tells us about whether pre-recorded evidence is assessed differently from evidence in open court.

The jury has been described as “the lamp that shows that freedom lives”. This research, while examining our safeguards for a fair trial in the context of juries, provides an excellent opportunity to dispel some of the myths and concerns which have built up around juries and trials, thereby restoring confidence in that view.