An exploration of the impact of LGBT+ representative mock-juries on mock-juror bias and guilty verdicts in transphobic hate crime cases.

Abstract

Research shows the multifarious benefits of diverse juries compared to homogenous juries and the extra influence of the jury foreperson, yet UK juries are significantly under-represented in terms of LGBT+ jurors and jury forepersons. The Law Commission (LC, 2020) recommended aggravated offences be extended to transphobic hate crimes, but failed to address the lack of jury diversity. Furthermore, the LC acknowledged some aggravated offences have disproportionately higher sentence maxima (which research shows can negatively influence conviction rates). Three jury-decision-making studies explored participants’ decisions in group conditions described as LGBT+ (homosexually) diverse compared to heterosexual-cisgender groups. Study One showed significantly lower guilty verdict rates in aggravated offences compared to their base offences and that half of the not-guilty verdicts were due to the sentence maxima being deemed as too high. Study Two evidenced the extra influence of the jury foreperson on participants’ verdicts. Furthermore, participant transprejudice levels towards the transgender victim were significantly lower in the LGBT+ groups compared to the non-LGBT+ groups in all three quantitative studies. Study Three replicated the findings of Studies One and Two and additionally showed that the anti-transgender opinions of a lesbian juror in fact increased participants’ guilty verdict rates in favour of the transgender female victim. In Study Four, ten LGBT+ people were interviewed regarding actual experiences of jury service. Findings corroborated the extra influence of the jury foreperson, no jury prejudice towards LGBT+ jurors and a unanimous agreement that there should be one or more LGBT+ jurors in LGBT+ hate crime cases. Policy recommendations include reducing the disproportionately higher sentence maxima of aggravated offences to improve conviction rates and reducing the extra powers of the jury foreperson to minimise their significantly greater influence. Jury selection protocols should include selecting potential jurors from additional registers to recruit more minority jurors, to increase jury diversity. Theoretical contributions include the development of a more holistic hate crime theory and contributions to inter-group contact and mock-jury research.