Psychologist calls for screening of jurors after two in three admit to feeling stressed and confused over judge's directions Do not carry out research on the internet! Do not talk to your family or friends about the trial! Do not visit the scene of the crime on your own! The restrictions imposed on jurors seem more rigorous by the year. In June, a juror was jailed for eight months for contempt of court after contacting a defendant via Facebook during a multimillion-pound drug trial in Manchester. Last year a report for the Ministry of Justice found that two out of three jurors do not fully understand the legal directions given to them by judges when they retire to consider their verdicts. No one suggested that it was supposed to be a pleasure; it is a civic duty. But are we, nonetheless, demanding too much of those who deliver verdicts? One juror, who deliberated on a harrowing murder trial at the Old Bailey several years ago, contacted the Guardian to say she was suffering from post-traumatic stress. "As a consequence of listening to the evidence I have panic attacks, anxiety, nightmares and have been campaigning for improved aftercare for jurors," the woman, a primary schoolteacher, said. "The defendants [on bail] in our case and their families were in the queues behind us at lunchtime and often when we were going back to the train station in the evening. It didn't sit comfortably with us. There was nowhere for the jury to talk about [the trial afterwards]. I had to keep everything internalised. You are not allowed to talk to anyone. You are not allowed to talk about deliberations, even after the trial, because of contempt of court issues. "I have been in contact with the Old Bailey, asking about aftercare for jurors. They provided me with the Samaritans' details. But you are not guaranteed to speak to the same person every time. It would have been useful to have a counsellor attached to our case. I can't believe I'm the only juror who has felt this way." Her experiences are not unique. Dr Noelle Robertson, a senior lecturer in clinical psychology at Leicester University, carried out a study in 2009 . "We did find evidence of traumatisation. Women tended to be more affected than men. This was a small survey and those who responded were self-selected, so it might mean they were disproportionately affected. But it did echo studies in other jurisdictions; there has been more extensive research in the US and Canada. "Our conclusion was that there's an element of stress involved [in being a juror]. More could be done to improve the preparation. The things that stress people are instructions. Jurors are also very proscribed about what they can talk about afterwards. This might be the very mechanism by which stress might [normally] be released. "We don't routinely screen people who might have had traumatic events in their past. A simple questionnaire that focused on past experiences might perhaps eliminate such jurors. Do you really want to have people who have axes to grind and are vulnerable? If people go in ill-prepared, then there are potential harms." The standard preparation for jurors is an information film outlining their role. The Samaritans' support service is publicised in a leaflet entitled Living with the Evidence , which states: "Jury service can be a stressful experience. Jurors may hear upsetting evidence and while they will get support during the trial itself, HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) are aware that it may be some time after the trial that distressing feelings may surface ... If you have painful or upsetting feelings which you feel the need to share, Samaritans are always available to listen. You do not need to give your name and you will be ringing in total confidence." Professor Cheryl Thomas, director of the Jury Project at University College London, is developing juror conduct cards that might help make it clearer what can be done and what is forbidden. Awareness of the problem dates back to the 1995 Rosemary West trial, she said, when the Lord Chancellor's department offered counselling to jurors at the close of the serial-killing case. "Almost 200,000 members of the public do jury service every year in England and Wales, and the overwhelming majority have a very positive experience," Thomas said. "We know this because we asked jurors in a range of courts around England and Wales at the end of their jury service how they would feel about serving again if they were summoned ? and almost all (more than 80%) said they would be happy to serve again. There are juries that get back together again for reunions. "But there may be some confusion on the part of jurors about what they can and cannot talk about after the trial ? and we are working with HMCTS and the judiciary on a project to identify what information jurors are unclear about and how best to ensure they understand the exact scope of section 8 of the Contempt of Court Act. "Jurors can talk about what happens in a trial, what they thought of the judge, how miserable the food was in the canteen, what they thought of the barristers, how they were treated etc. The only thing they can't talk about is what happens in the deliberating room." Any juror who felt upset about their experience should contact the jury manager at the court where they served, Thomas added. "A lot of jurors have concerns about whether they did the right thing. Should they have acquitted? Was the convicted defendant really guilty? People have different ways of dealing with it." Trial by jury Contempt of court UK criminal justice Crime Owen Bowcott guardian.co.uk © 2011 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds