Jurors Back 'Valuable' Counselling, Despite Low Uptake

Why It Matters

Even modest engagement shows that targeted mental‑health resources can mitigate juror distress, reinforcing the justice system’s responsibility to protect participants. Scaling the programme could improve juror wellbeing and court staff morale while reducing potential litigation risk.

Key Takeaways

• Only 0.13% of jurors accessed the Juror Assistance Programme
• Majority of JAP users were female and aged 36‑50
• Over half of participants served on homicide or sexual‑offence trials
• Staff report improved court culture and duty‑of‑care perception
• Low uptake highlights need for better promotion and resources

Pulse Analysis

The Enhanced Support for Juror pilot, run from October 2024 to March 2025 in 15 Crown courts, sought to address a long‑standing gap in juror welfare. By offering the Juror Assistance Programme (JAP) and a structured End‑of‑Trial Intervention (ETI), the initiative provided confidential mental‑health counselling and debriefing sessions after trials. While the overall participation was modest—24 jurors accessed JAP and only 10 completed counselling—the programme demonstrated that tailored support can be delivered within existing court infrastructure.

Low uptake does not diminish the pilot’s significance. The data reveal that those who did seek help were disproportionately female, aged 36‑50, and often involved in high‑stress cases such as homicide, sexual offences, or child‑abuse trials. Court staff reported a perceptible shift toward a more compassionate culture, noting that the interventions softened the formal nature of jury service and reinforced the message that jurors are valued. However, barriers such as limited awareness, staffing pressures, and timing constraints likely suppressed broader participation. The evaluation’s decision not to survey participants directly, to avoid further distress, also limited insight into the programmes’ full impact.

Looking ahead, the findings suggest a clear roadmap for national rollout. Enhancing early communication about available resources, integrating support mechanisms at trial onset, and expanding staff training could boost engagement. Moreover, systematic collection of juror feedback would enable continuous improvement and demonstrate measurable mental‑health outcomes. As courts grapple with staffing shortages and increasing case complexity, embedding robust juror support may become a critical component of judicial duty of care and overall system resilience.