Jurors versus Jurats: Investigating legal professionals’ perceptions of lay decision-making in Guernsey

Abstract

Abstract

This study explores criminal justice professionals’ perceptions of the Guernsey Jurat model of lay decision-making, in comparison to the jury model used in England and Wales. Little research has considered the Guernsey Jurat model and attitudes towards it. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with ten criminal justice professionals, including Guernsey Deputies, defence advocates and prosecutors, some of whom had previously also worked in England and Wales. Thematic analysis was conducted, and three themes were developed: Jurats are a more suitable model of lay decision-making in complex case types; calls for judge-only sentencing in Guernsey; and calls for reform to the appointment of Jurats . It was concluded that participants perceived professional models of lay decision-making (i.e. Jurats) as more suitable than juries in complex case types due to their professional appointment but that reforms to the Jurat election process and Guernsey sentencing guidelines are nonetheless required. This research can be used to inform calls for reform to the jury model of delivering justice in English rape trials, where our findings suggest that Guernsey legal professionals generally advocate for the use of professional volunteer jurors (similar to magistrates), thought to be less prone to rape myth biases due to their training and experience.