‘VIRTUAL’ juries who work from home could help solve the court backlog problem, experts have claimed.
The research comes as almost 80,000 cases are in the backlog built up due to “Covid and underfunding”.
Some trials are now being listed five years in the future — with delays seeing more victims drop out of the system.
The growing issue saw new plans announced by the Justice Secretary in November last year.
They included all criminal cases where the suspect could be handed up to five years’ jail decided by a judge alone.
Only the most serious cases, such as murder and rape, will go before a jury.
An independent review earlier this year by retired judge Sir Brian Leveson stated that increasing capacity to a level which would reduce the backlog would cost billions of pounds.
Judge-only trials are seen as being faster — and cheaper.
Researchers have now found “virtual” juries who work remotely through video conferences could be a “viable alternative to traditional in-person trials”.
As reported by The Times, experts from the University of Exeter, the University of Texas at El Paso and Cornell University in New York held 54 mock jury trials during testing.
The trials were watched as video footage, 24 juries deliberated in person, while 30 worked remotely.
The study concluded: “In-person and virtual juries did not differ significantly across most outcomes”.
“This study found few major differences between mock juries that deliberated in person and virtually — virtual jurors were just as attentive and thoughtful, and deliberations were generally comparable,” experts added.
Research also found jurors who worked remotely focused better, while those in person “interrupted each other significantly more”.
“Despite concerns that virtual formats substantially reduce jurors’ attention or change the nature of their deliberations, virtual jurors thoroughly processed relevant evidence and reportedly expended more effort in doing so,” said Krystia Reed, PhD, of The University of Texas at El Paso and the study’s lead researcher.
Experts concluded working remotely would make it easier for more people to take part in jury service, for example those who don’t drive or have physical limitations.
“For the most part, the in-person and virtual juries were pretty similar. The main differences were that virtual jurors were generally younger, had more college degrees and were more likely to work full time,” said Reed.
However, conducting trials with “virtual” jurors would make it harder to monitor them, the study highlighted.
And, there were fears jurors would be more tempted to research the case online, when not in a controlled courtroom.
Another concern underlined was the potential for distractions while working from home.
But lead researcher Reed concluded: “This study provides little evidence that virtual jury participation fundamentally alters core aspects of jury deliberation and makes us very hopeful for the jury system, even as it begins to incorporate more technology.”
“This study should calm some of the concerns about virtual juries, though there’s still more to learn about where differences might come into play.”
It comes after David Lammy said he will press ahead with controversial plans to end the right to jury trial — despite a huge outcry.
Mr Lammy said the reforms will give “brave survivors the justice they deserve”.
He said: “We inherited a courts emergency — a justice system pushed to the brink.
“Behind every one of thousands of cases waiting to go to trial is a human life put on hold.
“For many victims, justice delayed is justice denied.”
But shadow justice minister Kieran Mullan said: “Abandoning the right to be tried by your peers is one of the worst plans this shambolic Government has come up with.
“Instead of trying to ditch that 800-year-old right, Lammy should focus on getting the court backlog down.”
