Recent research projects

Juries and Interactive Visual Evidence (JIVE)

ARC Funded Research Grant

The JIVE project investigated the ways in which visual technologies are transforming the court environment. It has measured the impact of interactive displays on the trial process, specifically how computer simulations and 360° crime scene reconstructions may better inform juries, but potentially increase prejudice against defendants. There were three research stages:

Stage one – survey of juror eligible persons focused on the development of credible scenarios and questionnaire observations of court presentations of interactive visual evidence and the use of panoscan evidence in trials

Stage two – individual level juror experiment Juror eligible persons completed a questionnaire after being shown a short (approximately 25-minute) video of a mock trial. In total, there were six videos with three versions of two scenarios

Stage three – mock trials in the NSW courts Mock trials involving 144 participant jurors in 12 juries were held in the NSW Supreme Court. They deliberated as a jury would normally and returned a verdict. Blending observation and experimental approaches, the study tracked how jurors in a simulated court setting use visual evidence in making decisions and identified ways of using interactive technologies more effectively while minimising any negative impacts. It involved police, prosecutors and judges working alongside academic experts in law, architecture, media studies, psychology and criminology.

Objectives

  1. To identify the organising principles used by criminal juries to structure debate and reach decisions.
  2. To determine the extent and use of visual evidence in jury trials.
  3. To measure the impact of two forms of interactive visual evidence – computer simulations and 360 degree crime scene displays – on how juries receive and process information, debate the evidence and make decisions.
  4. To measure the extent to which interactive visual evidence a) improves jury recall and understanding of key issues, and b) produces prejudicial attitudes towards the accused.
  5. To identify ways of minimising potentially prejudicial impacts of interactive visual evidence on juries, and measure the impact of two such strategies: judicial guidance before the evidence is given and expert testimony for the other party afterwards.

What’s been achieved

A major theme emerging from the analysis of project data is that the main experimental effects – interactive visual evidence and judicial instructions – have relatively modest impacts overall. However they do show stronger effects in some sub-populations, particularly those who are most prone to convict. The JIVE data has shown that fear of terrorism may be a better predictor of verdict than either the experimental interventions, deliberation or any demographic characteristics.

The research involved a live simulation of a terrorism trial to examine the impact of interactive visual evidence on jurors. Because the subject matter of the scenario used was terrorism, which has had a continuing resonance in public debate, we have paid greater attention to the variables associated with it. Fear of terrorism, for example, has been shown from the JIVE data to be a better predictor of verdict than either the experimental interventions, deliberation or any demographic characteristics. 

CIs from the project ran a study tour of the Victorian courts in March 2009 which included a major debate at Melbourne Law School on ‘Security in an Age of Terror’. This was chaired by CI Tait and developed one of the main issues raised by the project – how can juries deal fairly with terrorist issues? A follow-up debate on this topic was held the Annual Jury Research Conference held in November 2009. One of the papers from this conference was provided by PI Diane Jones, who emphasised the architectural issues in these trials both in terms of the presentation in court of persons accused of terrorism and the use of technology. This theme was further explored at the Third Justice Environments Conference, organised by the research team in May 2010, in a paper by CI Jacqui Horan, ‘Can juries be fair in an age of terror?’. This paper will be published in a peer-reviewed journal in 2010. 

Because of this new direction, a major book to be published which will focus on issues of juries and trials in terrorism cases.

Findings from the study were presented at the Third Justice Environments Conference in Sydney on 20-22 May 2010.

Project participants

David Tait, University of Western Sydney; Jane Goodman-Delahunty, Charles Sturt University; Jennelle Kyd, University of Central Queensland; Jacqui Horan, University of Melbourne; Graham Brawn, University of Melbourne; Greg Battye, University of Canberra; Jim Ogloff, Monash University; Chris Lennard, University of Canberra; Diane Jones, PTW Architects; Anne Wallace, University of Canberra; Justice Richard Refshauge, Supreme Court of ACT; Damian Schofield, Director of HCI, SUNY – Oswego, James Roberson, University of Canberra; Mark Hanson, Hanson Associates; Rod Louey-Gung, Integrated Media; Cameron Lyon, Lyons Architects; Karen Mow, University of Canberra; Sam Hinton, University of Canberra; Kate O’Brien, APAI student, Monash; Damian Schofield, RMIT.

Partners

Australian Federal Police, Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration, PTW Architects, Integrated Media Pty Ltd, Lyons Architects, ACT Director of Public Prosecutions.

Publications and conference papers

Newsletters

Justice Environments Newsletter July 2008

JIVE Newsletter February 2008

Justice Environments Network Newsletter March 2008

Publications

Books

Ogloff, J. R. P., Clough, J., Goodman-Delahunty, J. & Young, W. (2006). The jury project: Stage 1 - A survey of Australian and New Zealand judges. Melbourne: Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration.

Book chapters

Goodman-Delahunty, J. & Tait, D. (2006). Lay participation in legal decision making in Australia and New Zealand: Jury trials and administrative tribunals. In M. F. Kaplan & A. M. Martin Rodriguez (Eds), Understanding world juries through psychological research. NY: Psychology Press.

Schofield, D. & Goodwin, L. (2007). Using graphical technology to present evidence. In S. Mason (Ed.), Electronic evidence: Disclosure, discovery and admissibility (Chapter 5), London: LexisNexis Butterworths.

Sporer, S. L., & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2009). Disparities in judicial determinations in sentencing. In M. E. Oswald, S. Bieneck & J. Hupfeld-Hienemann (Eds.). The social psychology of punishment of crime (pp. 379-401). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Schofield, D. & Mason, S. (2010). Using graphical technology to present evidence. In S. Mason (Ed.), Electronic evidence: Disclosure, discovery and admissibility (2nd ed.) (Chapter 6), London: LexisNexis Butterworths.Schofield, D. & Mason, S. (in press 2010), ‘Using Graphical Technology to Present Evidence’, in S. Mason (ed.), Electronic Evidence (2nd edn), Lexis-Nexis.

Tait, D. 2007, ‘Rethinking the Role of the Image in Justice: Visual Evidence and Science in the Trial Process’, Law, Probability and Risk, 6(1-4): 311-18.

 

Journals

 

Bright, D.A. & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2006). Gruesome evidence and emotion: Anger, blame and jury decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 30, 183-202.

 

Horan, J. & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2010, in press). Challenging the peremptory challenge system in Australia. Criminal Law Journal, 34(3), 167.

 

Goodman-Delahunty, J., Cossins, A. & O’Brien, K. (2010, in press).

Enhancing the credibility of complaints in child sexual assault trials: the effect of expert evidence and judicial directions. Behavioural Sciences & the Law.

 

Goodman-Delahunty, J., Cossins, A., & O’Brien, K. (2010, in press). A comparison of expert evidence and judicial directions to counter misconceptions in child sexual abuse trials. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology.

 

B Journals

Cush, R. K. & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2006). The influence of judicial instructions on processing and judgments of emotionally evocative evidence. Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law, 13, 110-123.

 

Tait, D. (2007, Nov.). Rethinking the role of the image in justice: Visual evidence and science in the trial process. Law, Probability and Risk, 6, 311-318.

 

Bright, D.A. & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2010, in press). Mock juror decision making in a civil negligence trial: The impact of gruesome evidence, injury severity and information processing route. Psychiatry, Psychology & Law.

 

C Journals

Betts, S. & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2007).  The case of Kathleen Folbigg: How did justice and medicine fare?  Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 39, 11-24.

 

Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2007). Secrets of the jury room, by Malcolm Knox. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 39, 127-128.

 

Hewson, L. & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2008). Using multimedia to support jury understanding of DNA profiling evidence. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 40, 55-64.

 

Ogloff, J.R.P., Clough, J. & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2007). Enhancing communication with Australian and New Zealand juries: A survey of judges. Journal of Judicial Administration, 17, 1-20.

 

Schofield, D. (2009, June). Animating evidence: Computer game technology in the courtroom. Journal of Information, Law and Technology, 2009 (1), <http://go.warwick.ac.uk/jilt/2009_1/scofield>

 

Goodman-Delahunty, J. & Sporer, S. L. (2010). Unconscious influences in sentencing decisions: a research review of psychological sources of disparity. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 42(1), 9-36.

 

Conferences

 

O'Brien, K., Tait, D. & Goodman-Delahunty, D. 2009, ‘Juror Understanding of “Beyond Reasonable Doubt”’, Seventh Annual Jury Research and Practice Conference, Sydney, 20 November.

Tait, D., ‘Does Discussion Promote Moderation? The Impact of Deliberations on Verdict in a Jury Simulation’, 22nd Annual ANZSOC Conference, Perth, November 2009.

Waubert de Puiseau, B., Goodman-Delahunty, J. & Tait, D. 2008, CSI: The Influence of TV Exposure on Juror Perception of Crime Scene Simulations, Jury Practice and Research Conference, Brisbane, 14 November 2008.

Tait, D. 2008, Report on Stage 3, Juror Feedback Session, Sydney,15 May 2008. Goodman-Delahunty, J. 2008, Report on JIVE Design – research questions, design and procedures, Juror Feedback Session, Sydney, 15 May 2008.

Betts, S. 2008, Report on Stage 3 Observations, Juror Feedback Session, Sydney, 15 May 2008.

Mow-Lowry, A. 2007, Juries and Interactive Visual Evidence, SASP Conference April 2007.

Mow-Lowry, A. 2006, Juries and Interactive Visual Evidence, Jury Conference November 2006.

Contacts

Professor David Tait, Dr Meredith Rossner

Mental Health Tribunals: Balancing Fairness, Freedom, Protection and the Right to Treatment

ARC Funded Research Grant

In determining treatment options for people with a mental illness, mental health tribunals (MHTs) balance the person's right to treatment with other rights such as their right to safety, justice, and freedom from coercion. How do they manage this complex juggling act? Like many parts of the justice system, MHTs do things differently in each jurisdiction of Australia.

The principal aim of the 2005-2008 study was to investigate the ‘fairness and justice’ of MHT hearings in NSW, Victoria and the ACT, and to identify best practice reforms which enhance MHT processes and therapeutic outcomes for participants. The study also sought to encourage wider debate about the review process and facilitate dialogue between participants and stakeholders.

Key research questions

  1. What is the impact of hearings on consumers’ sense of ‘fairness’ and the actuality of that process?
  2. What is the extent of consumers’ participation (or ‘engagement’) in hearings?
  3. What is the ‘therapeutic’ impact of hearings and how do they relate to broader experiences of mental health care?
  4. What symbolic and ceremonial power relationships exist between professionals, families and patients in the hearing context?

The research team was led by Professor Terry Carney from Sydney University with Dr David Tait from Canberra University and Fleur Beaupert from Sydney University. Research partners included the NSW Mental Health Review Tribunal, ACT Mental Health Tribunal, Mental Health Review Board of Victoria and the NSW Law and Justice Foundation.

Publications

Carney, T., Beaupert, F., Perry, J. & Tait, D. 2008, ‘Advocacy and Participation in Mental Health Cases: Realisable Rights or Pipe Dreams?’, Law in Context, 26(2): 125-47.’ (2008) Law in Context, 26(2): 125-47.

Beaupert, F., Carney, T., Tait, D. & Topp, V. 2008, ‘Property Management Orders in the Mental Health Context: Protection or empowerment?’, UNSW Law Journal, 31(3): 795-824.

Carney, T. & Beaupert, F. 2008, ‘Mental Health Tribunals: Rights Drowning in Un-“chartered” health waters?’, Australian Journal of Human Rights, 13(2): 181-208.

Carney, T., Tait, D. & Beaupert, F. 2008, ‘Pushing the Boundaries: Realising Rights through Mental Health Tribunal Processes?’, Sydney Law Review, 30(2): 329-56.

Carney, T., Tait, D., Chappell, D. & Beaupert, F. 2007, ‘Mental Health Tribunals: "TJ" Implications of Weighing Fairness, Freedom, Protection and Treatment’, Journal of Judicial Administration, 17:(1), 46-59.

Juror Satisfaction: Practices, Policies and Procedures that Influence Juror Satisfaction in Australia

Criminology Research Council Project Funding Grant

This study of the practices, polices and procedures affecting juror satisfaction in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia was commissioned by the Criminology Research Council in 2005 and concluded in 2007. It sought the views of the community, relevant stakeholders and jurors on issues such as: communication with jurors prior to empanelment, court facilities and amenities, incidents and conditions of jury service, and the perceived fairness of jury procedures.

Research findings

The research findings highlighted a lack of accurate information about jury duty in the community as a barrier to jury service, the importance of the physical environment to the experience of jury service, juror levels of satisfaction with communication prior to and on the day jury duty commenced, dissatisfaction of a majority of jurors with remuneration. Finally it analysed community perceptions of and confidence in the jury system.The research team included Jane Goodman-Delahunty (UNSW) as Project Director, with David Tait (University of Canberra), Jonathon Clough (Monash), Jacqueline Horan (Melbourne), James RP Ogloff (Monash) and Neil Brewer (University of Adelaide) as Chief Investigators, and Jessica Prattley as Project Co-ordinator. A full report of the research findings, which includes a range of recommendations for improving juror satisfaction, is available at the Australian Institute of Criminology website.

Publications

Delahunty-Goodman, J., Brewer, N., Clough, J., Horan, J., Ogloff, J.R.P., Tait, David, Pratley, J. 2008, Practices, Policies and Procedures that Influence Juror Satisfaction in Australia, Report to the Criminology Research Council July 2007 (Funded by CRC Grant C01/06-07). Resarch and Public Policy Services, No. 87, Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra.

Updated August 2010