Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
Study of bank fraud victims reveals that one in nine felt like their provider treated them like the criminal, not the victim.
Following RBS chief executive, Ross McEwan’s blaming of 'careless' fraud victims for devastating losses of money, Aspect Software responds with further findings that banks are needlessly blaming victims for fraud across the industry, rather than employing technology that can help.
Research by Censuswide, commissioned by Aspect, revealed that one in nine people who were a victim of banking fraud, felt like their provider treated them like the criminal, not the victim. 12% were not believed, and 12% felt the bank was not doing all it could to put their mind at rest. The research also found that over a quarter of bank customers also have to go out of their way to report fraud to their providers even though the technology is there to solve this issue. Shockingly, the most common way that customers were first alerted to any fraud on their account, building society or credit card account(s) was that they personally saw a suspicious transaction/activity via online banking.
The CEO of RBS continues to warn that victims of bank fraud should not expect automatic refunds stating that people “can't keep blaming this on an organisation where customers don't take their own duty of care as well. When people are passing their iPads or laptops over with their passwords and the like, there's got to be a care here, otherwise this will just become a major issue for all and the cost will pass through.”
But according to Aspect’s research, only 44 per cent of cases where monies were lost fraudulently were refunded by banks, taking on average 3.7 days to reach their accounts. Some 16 per cent claimed they were refunded “immediately”, with a further 28 per cent receiving a refund within 24 hours. 3 per cent say that it took longer than a week, and 2 per cent claim they never received reimbursement from their provider despite the fraud being through no fault of their own.
Keiron Dalton, Global Program Senior Director, Aspect Software, commented: “Pointing fingers, and victim blaming won’t solve the real issue at hand. More than a quarter of respondents had to report fraud or suspicious activity to their providers first. The use of mobiles for banking has made it possible to leverage publicly available mobile data to verify users with something as simple as a short, automated call, which can identify and flag suspicious activity such as SIM Swap and call divert. Security need not be taxing, but instead it can be imperceptible to the customer and offer multi-factor authentication at the same time thus avoiding fraudster’s access to accounts and avoiding any victim blaming,” he concluded.
Keiron concluded: “The BBA calculates that people log into mobile banking apps more than 11 million times a day in Britain alone. Consumers that choose to manage their money via a device expect flexible, speedy digital banking that’s so easy it has become second nature, so why are we still in the dark ages when it comes to fraud? If mobile can make money management easy, frictionless and convenient, why can’t it for security, verifying identity and identifying attacks before they can succeed?”
*Survey conducted by Censuswide and commissioned by Aspect Software UK. Sample of 500 respondents in the UK 16+ years old, who have experienced at least one incidence of banking fraud in the last 12 months. Research conducted in April 2017.
(Source: Aspect Software)
Laura Nash, barrister at St John’s Buildings, has become one of the UK’s youngest coroners, having been appointed Assistant Coroner at Oldbury Coroner’s Court at the age of 31.
Laura, who was called to the Bar in 2009, has extensive experience dealing with inquests, having acted for both interested parties and families. She has built a strong criminal and prison law practice, specialising in deaths in custody.
In 2015, she acted for the family of Neal Price following his death at HMP Forest Bank in Salford, as well as recently acting for Manchester Airport Group following the death of a passenger on a flight. She also has considerable experience of acting on cases across criminal and regulatory law, including health and safety, fraud, animal cruelty and sexual offences.
Laura will combine her new role with her existing practice, as she continues to build on her inquest expertise.
Laura Nash said: “It’s a huge honour to be appointed as a coroner at such a young age, and is testament to the support given to me by St John’s Buildings in the six years I have been in Chambers.
“In addition to the decision-making responsibilities, empathy and understanding is at the heart of being a coroner, working to help get to the bottom of what can be tragic circumstances. I have seen first-hand how important inquests can be in providing closure to bereaved parents and partners as well as for agencies to learn lessons from events, and these will be my objectives in this new role.”
(Source: St. John’s Buildings)
IP law firms are part of an ever-changing landscape, with new legislation and regulation constantly challenging the IP industry. In a new whitepaper, ‘Adapt. Evolve. Thrive’ from CPA Global, IP Law firms are encouraged to embrace innovation and technology for more efficient operations and enhanced client collaboration. What practical steps can IP law firms take to distinguish themselves from competitors? Here lawyer monthly hears from Ian Johnson, Head of legal at CPA Global.
There have been a number of recent reforms in key jurisdictions that are significantly impacting the law firm market. Following the Brexit vote in the UK, it was widely expected that the UK would not join the Unified Patent Court. However, the government will now continue ratifying the EU’s patent plans.
In North America, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) switched the US patent system from ‘first to invent’ to ‘first inventor to file’, pressurising businesses to file early. While the Inter Partes Review also made it easier and more cost effective to challenge granted US patents.
IP law firms need to must maintain an understanding of key regulatory changes and the impact new legislation could have on IP management. In addition, managing corruption and bribery risks, and complying with legislation, are now among companies’ biggest priorities for law firm counsel.
Corporate IP departments are experiencing growing pressure to file selectively and manage their portfolios more effectively. Filing patents is time consuming and costly and, to be profitable, businesses must be sure each filed invention will deliver return-on-investment. IP law firms should always consider the best way to drive a business’s value, for example, advising where to spend money or where to concentrate on earning revenue. For IP law firms to retain clients, they need to invest time in growth. By adapting client advice in-line with their needs and finance levels, IP law firms are helping build a stronger foundation for all future IP offerings.
Clients have higher expectations of technology to reduce overheads and increase productivity. Big data and analytics should be a key consideration for IP law firms looking to embrace innovation. Big data analysis of IP prosecution data, and rankings of IP attorneys and firms allow corporates and law firms to make more informed decisions about individual patent cases and the partners they work with.
Technologies such as cloud computing and machine learning, alongside easily available large data sets, can generate business insight from IP data quickly. This facilitates a radical new way of understanding what is protected and, more importantly, what is not.
Law firms should consider embracing prosecution metrics to provide insight into attorney performance and prosecution efficiency. Currently, the largest proportion of IP budget is spent on filing and prosecution. The ability to remove filings with a low probability of success or commercial impact, and increase higher probability filing, will help to ensure a more successful use of budgets. Client costs can be reduced, including ongoing R&D expenditure, focussing the company on where success is most likely to be achieved: new products; technology; and business strategy.
To make the most of their IP portfolios, clients are looking for law firms to develop a better understanding of their products, their competitors and their business strategies. The role of the IP law firm should involve more than IP protection, law firm partners should be now be a sounding board for commercial decisions.
Clients are increasingly interested in patent quality, not purely from a standard of legal defensibility but from a commercial and strategic business perspective. This requires their law firm partners to become even closer strategic partners.
The argument for IP law firms to be an integral part of a client’s strategic business planning and development has never been stronger. Most IP law firms look similar to potential clients, so there is a real opportunity for those who can increase their relevance to their client base with these five steps.
Following on with Lawyer Monthly’s series on law school and careers we talk money and fees. Below Francine Ryan, lecturer in law and member of the Open Justice team at the Open University, discusses several options for hiring legal aid, how lawyers generally operate, and what avenues of support are available to the public.
Recent research found fees for partners at top London law firms is now as high as £1000 per hour, with average hourly rates for senior staff outside the capital exceeding £200. These fees are clearly unaffordable for many but there are alternative ways of accessing legal advice and representation without paying the top hourly rates:
Law firms
Hourly rates for partners at London law firms are out of reach for most individuals but that does not mean instructing a law firm is prohibitive. Law firms offer a range of flexible funding arrangements, including fixed fees or working within a budget. In addition, there are two types of conditional fee agreements (CFA) or damages based agreements (DBA) often referred to as ‘no win, no fee’ cases, under both agreements there is no liability for costs in the event the case is unsuccessful. If the case is successful under a CFA the solicitor is paid their costs plus a success fee which will be a fixed percentage uplift, whereas under a DBA, also known as a contingency fee agreement, the solicitor receives their costs plus a percentage of the compensation awarded. The Solicitors Regulation Authority provides more information on these types of fee arrangements.
Legal aid
Legal aid is run by the Legal Aid Agency, funding is available for certain types of cases. Cuts to legal aid have been made since 2012 and have had a particular impact on civil cases. The civil legal aid helpline offers free confidential advice on debt and housing (if your home is at risk), domestic abuse, separating from an abusive partner, a child being taken into care, special education needs, discrimination and some child abduction cases. Criminal legal aid is also available depending on the type of case and where it is heard. Citizens Advice provides detailed advice on the availability of legal aid.
Legal expenses insurance
Legal expenses insurance is often included in household or car insurance providing access to free legal advice helplines and paying the costs of legal representation. Check your policy documents to see if you are covered.
Trade Union membership
Membership of a trade union often includes free legal advice and representation. Subject to meeting certain conditions the trade union will pay legal costs and disbursements for matters they are prepared to fund.
Pro bono support
Some lawyers will agree to represent a client without charge on a pro bono basis. Free legal assistance from volunteer barristers is provided by the charity, the Bar Pro Bono Unit and LawWorks connects people to free legal advice. FRU (Free Representation Unit) provides free legal representation in social security and employment hearings.
Law clinics
Many law schools offer free legal advice through a law clinic. Clinics vary in the service they offer- some replicate a law firm by offering a full legal service under the supervision of qualified practitioners, whilst others provide initial advice and signposting to other legal services. Some clinics may cover a number of different areas of law while others will specialise in one or two areas, for example social welfare or employment law. Law schools can register their clinic with LawWorks or details of the clinic can be found on the law school website.
Crowdfunding
CrowdJustice is a funding platform that provides an opportunity to build a community to raise funds to support a legal case. The People’s Challenge to the Government regarding Brexit raised £170,550 and Joint Enterprise: Not Guilty by Association (JENGbA) raised over £10,000 to allow them to successfully intervene in the Supreme Court case of R v Jogee [2016] UKSC.
Advice agencies
Advice agencies offer a wide range of support to those who cannot afford or eligible for free legal representation. Citizens Advice provides advice and guidance on a host of legal problems. Advice is provided online, by telephone or in a person at a local Citizens Advice. Law Centres work in local communities offering legal advice, casework and representation. The Disability Law Service provides free legal advice and representation to people with disabilities. The Personal Support Unit (PSU) supports people representing themselves through the court process. Advicenow is a public facing website that provides advice guides on a range of legal topics to increase awareness of legal rights and responsibilities.
So, although instructing a lawyer can be expensive, there are alternatives to paying the top hourly rates. It is important for consumers to shop around and negotiate the best rate and it is still possible to access legal advice at little or no cost.
MHA MacIntyre Hudson, the top 20 UK chartered accountancy and business advisory firm, is merging its City and North London offices to enhance its client offering and accommodate growth. The merged teams will operate from the firm’s existing New Bridge Street office, close to Blackfriars in the City of London.
The North London team of seven partners and over 60 staff will join the City complement of 21 partners and 210 staff. The combined office is projected to generate annual fee income of over £21.5 million.
The existing City office provides a comprehensive range of services, including corporate finance, business recovery and outsourcing. It is also home to an extensive general practice and a team of specialists covering the not for profit sector. North London brings with it significant strength including expertise in construction and real estate, and professional practices.
Managing partner Rakesh Shaunak said: "Bringing together the exceptionally strong City and North London teams is an exciting opportunity to enhance our overall offering to clients, work together more effectively, and deliver more career progression opportunities for staff.
“Both offices have established cultures of excellence and enthusiasm in driving solutions for our clients. I look forward to welcoming my North London colleagues and building upon our roots across London, the Home Counties and further afield. Our business ethos remains to facilitate, support and encourage our clients in delivering their goals, and this will continue on a combined basis locally, nationally and internationally.”
(Source: MHA MacIntyre)
Barristers have warned that the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill’s approach to ‘bringing rights home’ is a recipe for confusion and puts the rights of UK citizens at risk.
The Bill adopts EU law in to UK statute, but the legal status of a number of corresponding rights that come from treaties is still unclear and that could place UK citizens and businesses at a disadvantage compared with those in the EU, the Bar Council has said.
Chair of the Bar Andrew Langdon QC said: “After exit day, UK citizens will find that domestic courts enforce the same laws as they do now, except that they may not be able to apply the underlying treaty provision. This could mean that where the rights of EU and UK citizens are interfered with by the same law, EU citizens would be able to challenge that law, but UK citizens would not.
“It is a recipe for confusion. Far from bringing rights home, this Bill sets up UK citizens for second class status.
“The Bill will also give UK citizens less protection against the power of the state as they will no longer be able to challenge EU law brought into UK law on the basis of non-discrimination, proportionality, legal certainty or the right of defence. Instead, legal challenges will be limited to more restrictive English law grounds such as rationality.
“For example, in 2014 the Welsh Government tried to give ten times as much farming aid to lowland farmers as hill farmers, but the move was abandoned when the hill farmers pointed out that the decision was discriminatory. That argument will not work after exit day.”
Environment
On the Bill’s impact on UK environmental law, Andrew Langdon QC said: “By taking a ‘snap-shot’ of EU law and adopting it into UK statute, the Bill offers no mechanism for the UK to keep pace with international conventions and agreements. Our laws may quickly become out-of-date and that could put the UK in non-compliance with its international obligations.
“Without clarity as to how courts should approach future judgments of the CJEU, there is a risk that different case law will emerge on the same legislation as European and UK courts may interpret them in different ways. This would inevitably create uncertainty and confusion for businesses which operate in both the UK and Europe.”
Devolution
On the impact of the Bill on devolution and the National Assembly for Wales, Andrew Langdon QC said: “The Bill will give UK ministers the power to amend adopted legislation that falls within the devolved competence of the National Assembly, without being answerable to the Assembly or requiring that the Assembly pass a legislative consent motion.
“A number of the Bill’s provisions give ministers in Westminster powers which, if exercised, could undermine the Sewel Convention and threaten the stability of our devolved constitutional arrangements and the legitimacy of the Welsh Assembly.”
(Source: The Bar Council)
In a case that has, for a decade, surpassed people’s understanding of European human rights and employment law, the tables have now turned.
Last week the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that a Romanian man, Mr Bogdan Mihai Barbulescu, should not have been sacked for sending private messages on Yahoo messaging on his work computer in 2007.
Mr Barbulescu’s employer used surveillance software to monitor his computer activity and found him sending private messages, allegedly of ‘intimate nature’, on company time, using company equipment. A Romanian court ruled in 2016 that the company was within its rights to fire him.
The ECHR has now decided that the man’s privacy was not ‘adequately protected’ and the decision cannot be appealed.
Beverley Sunderland, Managing Director, Crossland Employment Solicitors:
This decision reinforces the need for employers to first of all consider why they need to monitor an employee’s emails and what they are trying to protect. The usual reasons for looking at work emails is to ensure that employees are complying with their contracts and their regulation obligations and this is likely to be a legitimate reason. However, to even have the right to look at work emails, the employer must warn employees in advance that this is what they are doing and why.
Although it may be that ensuring an employee is actually working when they are at their desk is a legitimate reason, reserving the right to look at all emails, including private ones, on a work computer is unlikely to strike the required balance between the right to a private life and legitimate interests. A better way would be to tell employees that they should only access private emails or websites during breaks and that their use of the internet would be monitored in terms of time – but not the actual sites or emails. Then, if an employee is on the internet all day, they can be taken to task for this. An alternative way, bearing in mind most employees have smart phones these days, would be to block access to private email accounts and the website on their systems, rather than retaining the right to go into private emails and read them.
It is worth remembering that even though we are leaving the EU, the rights of the European Court of Human Rights are not affected and they will continue to have jurisdiction over the UK even once we have left the EU.
Jo Sellick, Managing Director, Sellick Partnership:
It seems to me that there is still confusion in this particular case about how aware the employee was regarding the fact his employer was monitoring personal conversations, and that is one of the reasons why the ECHR has reversed the original ruling. Aside from the legal implications of this decision, it is important to consider the impact that this kind of ruling has on a firm’s employer brand. Business owners must take a line on where they stand regarding personal communications during working hours and they should ensure this is well communicated to the workforce as part of a clear company policy. If you do decide to monitor all of your employees’ communications during working hours you must have good reasons for doing so and the entire workforce must know that this could potentially happen to them.
From a recruiter’s point of view, I am concerned about the damage to a firm’s employer brand and reputation if members of staff discovered they were being monitored without any prior knowledge. Modern technology makes it easier than ever before to delve into a person’s private life, whether through tracking their devices during working hours or through trawling through a prospective candidate’s social media accounts before they even start working for you. But that does not mean it is the right thing to do. Decide on your position when it comes to these kinds of activities and make sure that your actions fit your company’s ethos and codes of conduct.
From an employee’s perspective, a level of caution is always advisable, whether that’s sense checking any public social media activity to ensure it doesn’t contradict your professional persona, or applying a filter to your conversations during working hours. It would also be worth familiarising yourself with your employer’s policy for monitoring communications during working hours so that it does not come as a surprise to you if they are indeed tracking your conversations. You will then be in a good position to decide whether you are comfortable with that working environment and stance.
Emma Bartlett, Partner, Charles Russell Speechlys:
The impact for UK employers of the ECHR decision of 5th September in relation to Mr Barbulescu’s right to a private life and communications is essentially that workplace monitoring is not a care free matter; a return to greater caution is required. Policies should not be so restrictive as to “reduce private social life in the workplace to zero”. Employers should ensure, firstly, that they have a good business reason to monitor an individual’s communications at work, secondly, that they have provided adequate warning that such communications might be monitored in the workplace and, thirdly, that if personal communications are identified, employers should adopt the least invasive measure with regards to monitoring.
The ECHR would expect adequate notice to be given to employees of any policy warning employees of workplace monitoring. Such policy should not only explain why the monitoring is necessary, but detail how the monitoring might take place and to what extent. In Mr Barbulescu’s case, for example, it wasn’t clear that personal emails accessed by the employer would also be read. Only in exceptional circumstances would an employer need to do so; without serious consideration as to whether reading the email was necessary, the monitoring would be disproportionate and unjustified, breaching the Convention rights.
The ECHR would expect an employer to strike a balance when considering the employee’s right to private life against the employer’s right to monitor email use in order to protect its business. The balance of convenience should not automatically lie with the employer. The UK’s Information Commissioner has already established that an employer should carry out an “impact assessment” before venturing into private data at work. This would include considering any likely adverse impact of the monitoring on the employee, considering alternatives to monitoring and judging whether the monitoring is justified.
The decision provides guidance for UK Courts determining allegations of data breaches by employers as well as breaches of other statutory provisions binding UK employers including the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. Irrespective of a Brexit, decisions of the ECHR will continue to impact UK courts.
The ECHR determines applications by any person, group or one or more of the contracting states which allege a breach of human rights. Decisions of the Court can be appealed to the Grand Chamber of the ECHR.
Mr Barbulescu’s case, determined by the ECHR in January 2016, was widely reported in the UK press as giving a charter to employers to snoop on employees’ private emails. The 2016 decision indicated a broader approach could be taken to workplace monitoring, albeit that the employer still had to provide warning to its employees that it would monitor email use and the monitoring needed to be proportionate.
Having appealed to the Grand Chamber of the ECHR for a final determination, Mr Barbulescu was successful. The ECHR concluded that Mr Barbulescu’s human rights had been breached and his right to private life and communications had not been adequately protected by the national state.
Phil Beckett, MD, Alvarez & Marsal:
Whilst the new ruling is a change for an employee’s right to privacy, it does not address another issue at play here – how employees use employer technology. Whilst every employee has a right to privacy, they do need to consider how they’re using said technology, supplied by their employer, and what the consequences could be; as they could unwittingly be putting their organisation at risk.
This case focused on the fact that a member of staff was emailing on work time, and how because of this, the company sacked him. The wider issue, in my view, is the merging of the personal and the business world, and the additional risks that brings into the business domain – through simple access as well as shared credentials and data.
Employees now use multiple devices (laptops, tablets, phones) all of which carry hefty data histories. What’s more, nearly every employee has a personal phone, which comes into the workplace day in, day out. These devices are exposed to high volumes of data which aren’t logged by businesses, effectively meaning rogue data could be floating around unmonitored. With devices increasingly syncing browsing histories – accessing a personal email account on a work computer could lead to work-sensitive browsing data going home with the employee.
This presents firms of all sizes across every sector with a problem: how can the data coming in and going out of the business be tracked? The truth is, it is becoming a near-impossible challenge for firms to track and control data without stringent and immovable rules about how employees utilise technology. Whilst I don’t condone tracking employee behaviour in every situation, it certainly does help trace potential data threats.
For many firms, data is an afterthought at best, with mismanagement common. Data can no longer be overlooked in terms of legal threats – businesses track money that goes in and out and report on it, so it’s time to treat data the same. Whilst the majority of employees can be trusted and would not dream of jeopardising their employer, they may be doing it unwittingly as it’s frighteningly easy to send home documents, share confidential information with others or breach data laws. With the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) looming ahead of us next year, legal teams need to think about the wider argument, and where the right to privacy ends and confidentiality begins.
Mark Bland, Partner, Percy Hughes and Roberts Solicitors:
Who would have thought that the case of a Romanian engineer called Bogdam Barbulescu, who was sacked in 2007 for inappropriate use of his Yahoo Messenger account would 10 years later have a significant impact on UK Law.
The European Court of Human Rights has now handed down the decision which despite Brexit votes, will still impact on our Law.
The main issue at stake, in this case, was the conflict that exists between an individual’s right to a private life (protected by The Human Rights Act) and an employer’s right to ensure that workplace rules are being followed. The Courts said that an employer ‘cannot reduce private social life in the workplace to zero. Respect for private life and for the privacy of correspondence continues to exist, even if these may be restricted in so far as necessary’.
The crucial point in the case was that the employer monitored the employee’s account covertly without having warned him beforehand that they might do so. Consequently, the reading of his private correspondence was ruled to be a breach of his right to a private life.
The lesson to be learned by employers is that they must tell employees beforehand that their email and other work-related accounts may be monitored. This warning should be included in all IT policies. Provided that employees are on notice that their accounts may be monitored, then they cannot subsequently complain about intrusion into their private life when they are monitored.
The case highlights the increasingly blurred lines that now exist between work and free time and the use of social media in the workplace.
Dan Begbie-Clench, Partner, Doyle Clayton:
The recent European Court of Human Rights judgment in Barbulescu confirms what many UK employers already practise, but with a twist. It does not prevent employers from monitoring employees’ communications or taking disciplinary action based on what they find, but the ECHR decision does suggest that the nature and content of employers’ prior warnings about monitoring will be reviewed more closely.
Employers do not have free rein to monitor employees’ purely personal communications. This has not changed, and employees are still entitled to expect a degree of privacy even when communicating via work equipment or systems. However, employers can still lawfully monitor employees’ communications if they have good reason – for example, to ensure that the business is running smoothly and that employees are doing their jobs properly – subject to various considerations and constraints.
Despite not dramatically changing the legal landscape, the ECHR’s decision contains some nuances about the constraints under which employers operate when monitoring communications. The case turned on the ECHR’s finding that the employer had not given the employee proper advance warning that it would monitor his communications, and in particular had not told him that the content of his messages would be read. As such, the employer breached his right to privacy when it accessed and read his personal messages.
In the UK we have long understood that employers should give prior notice to employees that their communications might be monitored. The ECHR noted that an employer should explicitly warn employees about certain matters including that communications may be monitored, about the extent of the monitoring (including whether the content of messages will be read) and when it may occur, and the employer should have legitimate reasons to justify monitoring. In many cases, employers will only need to monitor internet/email traffic generally and will have no legitimate interest in the content of the messages themselves, in which case they should limit themselves to monitoring the former.
Many UK employers’ policies warn employees that monitoring will occur, but do not go so far as to set out all of the matters discussed in the ECHR’s judgment. To avert a similar situation, employers would be well-advised to review their policies and contractual terms to ensure that they are up-to-date and reflect these points. Failing to do so might breach employees’ privacy.
We would also love to hear more of Your Thoughts on this, so feel free to comment below and tell us what you think!
New research has shown that nearly half of jurors in rape cases come to a guilty verdict before deliberation, indicating a predictive relationship between juror demographics, personal experience, and psychological make up – impacting upon verdicts in rape cases.
The study, conducted by a researcher at the University of Huddersfield with legal guidance from Manchester based barristers’ chambers St John’s Buildings, revealed that 43% of jurors chose a pre-deliberation guilty verdict, with this figure rising to 83% within jurors with personal experiences of sexual victimisation. However, 13% changed their decision following discussions with fellow jurors, indicating victims were perhaps able to recognise their pre-existing bias.
A juror’s educational background was also shown to have significant implications on expected verdicts. Lesser-educated individuals were more likely to vote not guilty due to an increased tendency to hold more sexually aggressive attitudes, than those educated to degree level or above.
These findings will likely increase calls for jurors in the UK to be screened for pre-conceived bias before being selected as a juror, particularly within rape trials.
The study was commissioned to better understand the psychology of jurors trying allegations of sexual offences in the UK. Ministry of Justice statistics from 2015 reveal that just 1,297 convictions were secured, representing less than four% of all cases recorded by police over the 12 months.
Using more than 400 volunteers selected randomly from the electoral roll, the study replicated a genuine trial environment in order to assess how attitudes, backgrounds and perceptions can impact on verdicts. Of those that took part, 7.4% reported that they had personally been a victim of a sexual offence, including sexual assault and rape.
After conducting advanced analysis on the data obtained, being a victim of a sexual crime was shown to be a significant predictor of juror behaviour in rape cases, with the research revealing that jurors with personal experience of victimisation were four times more likely to convict in court, prior to deliberations taking place.
Other trends also emerged including men exhibiting a greater preference for the defendant’s version of events, while women more frequently identified with the victim. Interestingly, jurors from ethnic communities, including black and Asian jurors, were also shown to align more with the defendant when compared to those who identify as white British, suggesting a greater likelihood of a not guilty verdict.
Dominic Willmott, researcher at Huddersfield University and Lecturer in Forensic Psychology at Leeds Trinity University, said: “As has been the case for centuries, defendants have the right to be judged by a panel of their peers, making the concept of juries the heart of our justice system. However, this research shows that for all the best efforts of the courts, juries are not necessarily offering a fair and impartial assessment of the evidence, particularly within rape cases.”
“Past experiences play a huge role in shaping the person you are, and inevitably affects your view on society. As well as the importance of demographic features of the jurors, attitudes towards rape were found to be the strongest predictor of high numbers of not guilty verdicts.
“Our study highlights that even before the case has begun, jurors’ psycho-social make up predisposes them towards particular verdict decisions, making a vetting system for juries increasingly important. By implementing such a system, we can reduce existing bias from juries, which should result in a greater number of fair outcomes.”
Nigel Booth, barrister at St John’s Buildings, supported the research by helping compile case documents, and by ensuring that the mock trials were realistic and the jury directions accurate. He played the role of the judge. The cases were prosecuted and defended by barristers.
Nigel Booth said: “This research asks some very serious and difficult questions about the fairness of jury trials in rape cases. In recent years the Government has introduced many measures to help complainants feel more at ease with the trial process and to give the best evidence possible, but these measures do not address jurors’ previous experiences and beliefs which are shown to have a significant impact on how a juror views a case.
“For many years, judges have been warning juries against viewing the evidence through the lens of ‘stereotypes', however this research suggests these directions are not having the desired effect.”
(Source: University of Huddersfield)
Nearly 800,000 immigrant kids who were once undocumented have been able to live in the US without constant fear of deportation because of DACA. CNN's Vanessa Yurkevich explains what the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program is.
The US is one of the most visited places on earth, but has very complicated immigration laws. So just how difficult is it to enter the US?
