I was recently summoned for jury service. Despite my age, it was the first time I had been called and, once there, I was randomly chosen by the computer to sit on two cases.  It was an eye-opening experience in many ways, and a huge responsibility to have another person’s future in one’s hands.  I am glad to say that every person on the jury with me took this responsibility very seriously and the conversation in the deliberating room was respectful and constructive.

I read this week that Stephen Lambert of Studio Lambert, the producer of The Traitors TV series, has said that making the programme has somewhat shaken his faith in the jury system, as contestants are so bad at spotting a lie. I can understand his comment, having watched a few episodes of his series, but of course the process of The Traitors is very different to a jury attending a court case where witnesses, the police, barristers, claimant and accused all provide evidence with the aim of helping rather than hindering the jury in making their decision.  However, I did feel that there was one ingredient to success that was potentially missing from both scenarios: a facilitator.

Yes, there is a foreman of a jury, but they are not necessarily trained to chair a group or facilitate a conversation towards an end result. And yes, Claudia Winkleman acts as a sort of facilitator in The Traitors but her main role is to make the programme dramatic, not necessarily to encourage a search for truth, as the lack of truth, and the inability of contestants to spot the liars, is where the drama lies in that series.

The definition of a facilitator, just for clarification, is “a neutral guide who helps a group work together effectively to achieve a common goal by managing the process and dynamics of a meeting or event. They focus on ‘how’ the group works rather than ‘what’ the group discusses, using structured activities and processes to ensure open dialogue, balanced participation, and successful decision-making, without taking sides or contributing to the content.”  I would add that it can combine the how and the what and also involves generating a safe space for people to talk and share opinions in a respectful and focused manner.

Generally speaking, a facilitator should, indeed, adopt an objective, neutral role within the group.  Of course this is difficult, in fact impossible, in the jury system as it is made up of all twelve jurors who each have to be party to the final decision on a verdict. However, it is possible to lead a group discussion in a neutral way and share one’s views as that discussion unfolds.

None of this is particularly easy in a group who have never met before and may have very different personalities and backgrounds. It would, in my opinion, therefore, be helpful to provide the foreman, or foreperson, whether nominated by the Judge in Court or by the other jury members, with a one-page document outlining the role in more detail. This would include not just advising them that it will be up to them to inform the Court of whether the verdict is guilty or not guilty, but also to supervise the group to ensure that only facts shared in court are discussed. They must prevent people researching or applying any additional information they might have read but that was not mentioned in the trial. Also their role is to remind the group that they should only discuss the trial when all twelve of them are together in the deliberating room and not at any other time, and particularly not in a public arena. Some tips on how to manage all this, ensure that people keep on track, and don’t interrupt or dominate others etc, would surely be useful. 

As a trained mediator and facilitator, I have had my share of challenges with groups here and in other countries.  Some people can try to take over, others can be passive aggressive, others argumentative and so forth.  I firmly believe that being given some tips and guidance on the role could certainly help a novice foreman to feel confident and aware that they have the authority to call a halt to a discussion should everyone speak at once, or if one person is bullying another into their opinion. Also to encourage those who are introvert, or unused to speaking up in a group, or those who are daunted by the responsibility placed on them. The aim is to ensure justice is done.

Both functional and dysfunctional dynamics of jury deliberation can be seen played out in Channel 4’s documentary The Jury: Murder Trial where two juries judge the same case. It’s quite interesting to watch.

The comment by The Traitors’ producer inspired some conversation on Times Radio the other morning, where a commentator suggested that perhaps only “intelligent” people should be called for jury service. Not only is this a tricky measure but intelligent people can sometimes be totally lacking in common sense if they are in their ivory tower of intellect and reason and be unable to ‘see’ what others can see in the evidence. So that didn’t seem like a sensible idea to me.

Other commentators are advocating that cases should be overseen simply by members of the legal profession but, from my experience, it was in the diversity of life experience in the jury group in which the power lay.  Each person in that deliberating room brought unique insight, knowledge or perspective to the case, which helped to broaden each person’s understanding.  It was invaluable to have that diversity of information available in the room to help us reach our verdict. I felt fortunate in my fellow jury members, as each one listened and thought deeply about the case before us. I was impressed with the whole process.

I was less impressed in the way the police had collected or had not collected evidence in both the trials on which I was a juror and that was disappointing for everyone.  One cannot convict without evidence. Again, this is an area where the foreman as facilitator can keep the group on track, ensuring that the decision is based on what is credible, consistent and beyond reasonable doubt.

So, I would disagree with the producer of The Traitors but would advocate for more advice on the role of the foreman, to empower them successfully to facilitate the discussion.

And, as a postscript, the role of mediation, or lack of it, is something that has concerned me as much in politics as in the Courtroom.  I watched Trump and Putin sitting, six opinionated men in a room, and I questioned whether there was an objective and trained mediator present to ensure the discussion was balanced, that all voices were heard and that participants did not veer off onto pointless tangents or unconstructive bullying.  In my opinion, without such a person conducting the discussion, a meaningful agreement is less likely to be reached.

Watching the Channel 4 The Jury: Murder Trial programme demonstrates even more the need for a good facilitator to manage the conversations. No Foreman has been allocated and the jury are allowed to be together in a room sharing their opinions before all the evidence has been heard, which is not how it usually is. This is a dramatised programme, where people have volunteered to come onto the programme – perhaps a desire to be on tv, who knows. But it doesn’t really represent the jury experience in any way that was my own experience. The programme is, like The Traitors, all about television drama and not really about the legal process.