A pilot providing ‘enhanced support’ for jurors has had ‘low but meaningful’ uptake – despite less than 0.5% of jurors taking part, according to a newly published evaluation.

The Enhanced Support for Juror pilot included the implementation of the Juror Assistance Programme (JAP), which allowed jurors to access tailored mental health support after completing jury service, and End of Trial Intervention (ETI), a structured debriefing session led by trained court staff which included the option for jurors to take part in a ‘decompression’ session.

The pilot was run across 15 Crown courts, including Birmingham Crown Court, Carlisle Combined Court, and Central Criminal Court, from October 2024 to March 2025. The two initiatives ‘aimed to provide tailored support for those jurors who experience upset, or distress as a result of participating in jury service’.

Of 17,811 jurors, only 24 (0.13%) accessed the JAP, 13 (0.07%) were referred to counselling and 10 (0.06%) attended at least one counselling session.

Of the 24 who accessed the JAP, 79% were female, 63% white British and 50% were aged 36-50. Almost half (46%) had served on a homicide trial, 29% sat on a sexual offences case and 21% on child abuse or neglect trials.

The report said: ‘Jurors were more likely to stay behind and decompress after serious trials; some courts reported up to 1 hour of decompression time.’

Read more

A total 24 calls were made to the 24/7 helpline with 13 referrals to counselling, one onward GP referral and 10 non-referrals. Of the jurors referred to counselling, they attended, on average, three out of the available six sessions.

Court staff and jurors viewed both the JAP and ETI as a ‘valuable and overdue addition to the justice system, enhancing the court’s duty of care’, the report said. 

It added: ‘Whilst uptake was low, it demonstrated early indications of measurable improvements in participants’ mental health.

Primary research from jurors who received the ETI or accessed the JAP was not conducted so as not to ‘further distress a self-identified vulnerable group’ The report acknowledged the ‘limitation of this evaluation is that jurors’ experiences of the ETI were not collected’ which would need to be done if the programmes were rolled out nationally.

The report said: ‘Many staff felt the JAP and ETI contributed to a more supportive and compassionate court culture, appreciated by both jurors and staff. The interventions were seen as helping to soften the formal nature of jury service and reinforce the message that jurors are valued.’

Despite ‘staffing pressures and time constraints’, the report noted, ‘staff felt that the pilot enhanced their ability to support jurors'. Suggested improvements include providing resources at the start and throughout the trial, better advertisement of the pilot, improvements in staff training and exploring how long jurors can access support post-service.