Deaf News: Deaf woman prevented from serving as a juror

A deaf woman has been effectively barred from serving as a juror after being told she would not be given access to a BSL interpreter.

Pauline Latchem, a 63-year-old counsellor from north London, was deafened as a child after contracting meningitis, and describes learning BSL in her early thirties as “a lifesaver – school left me with ill-equipped to communicate in the real world.” (She now works with deaf and deafblind clients using a range of communication tools including BSL.)

She was called to be a jury member at London’s Wood Green Crown Court earlier this month. After initially asking to defer her requested two weeks’ service due to a planned holiday, she was told she’d be unable to serve.

Latchem told the i newspaper: “I explained on the access requirements that I’m a deaf BSL user and needed an interpreter and note-taker. But I was told that ‘jurors are not allowed to have interpreters, and that this ‘may well impact on my ability to carry out my duties as a juror’”.

She replied stressing that she did not want to be excused from jury service, but wished to exert her legal right to have reasonable adjustments made.

Since then, her request for a deferral has been accepted, and she has now been asked to attend court in August.

But Latchem says she was initially left feeling ‘irritated and annoyed’ by the decision. “That’s particularly so given that they couched an effective exclusion as an ‘excusal from service’ as if they were somehow doing me a favour.”

However, she has since been emailed about her complaint, with an apology and acknowledging the denial of access. The reply also informed Latchem that the court service is now modernising the system and, meanwhile, has lodged a request with Wood Green Crown Court to make reasonable adjustments for her. They have promised to her know what the court agrees on.

Latchem adds: “So I am feeling quite hopeful that I may get the chance to serve on the jury after all.

“So there is possibility of change – but it would be good to keep this issue on the boil meanwhile.”

What does the law say?

In the UK, it’s not possible to have a ‘13^th member of the jury’, who would be considered a ‘stranger in the court’, so anyone needing a BSL interpreter to follow court proceedings would effectively be barred from serving.

Interpretations of jury room deliberations would not be allowed under the current rules, because, the argument goes, this could affect the discussions’ ‘confidentiality.’

No statute explicitly prevents interpreters or signers from the jury room, and both have long been used in open court. But common-law rules exclude third parties from jury deliberations. When people are called, they are then selected through an empanelment process, which allows lawyers to exclude people with no reason.

Latchem continues: “I imagine interpreters might need to sign a specific confidentiality clause (even though they’re already professionally committed to confidentiality anyway), and fellow jurors would need to understand interpreters are not part of the decision-making process. Other forms of communication support including Speech-to-Text transcribers, professional lipspeakers and note-takers should also be available.”

The Ministry of Justice insists it is modernising courts to make them more accessible, by introducing induction loops and other tools such as computer-aided transcription.

Latchem adds: “In the UK, nothing has changed in the 20 years or so since Jeff McWhinney challenged the system as CEO of the British Deaf Association.”

(Profoundly deaf McWhinney lost his fight to be allowed to sit as a juror in 1999.)

“I think that judgement demoralised many people, who may have reckoned that if someone as high profile as him couldn’t do it, how could they succeed?

But this is 2019 – we’ve had equal rights legislation in place for over 20 years. That has to count for something or it’s just a mockery.  So while I felt angry, I was also galvanised to try to do something about it.

“There’s every chance the law could change, and I hope this will happen sooner rather than later. But we need to keep lobbying, raising awareness and highlighting areas of inequality and discrimination.”

Professor Jemina Napier, Deputy of School and Head of Languages and Intercultural Studies at Heriot-Watt University, told Limping Chicken: “The only country that systematically allows deaf people to sit as jurors is the US.

“Our research confirms that deaf sign language users can comprehend legal discourse through interpreters, that deaf people are keen to be jurors, and that legal professionals agree with the principle of deaf people serving. But the sanctity of the jury room is protected to prevent undue influence from non-jurors or strangers.

“Despite assurances that interpreters are impartial, questions have been asked about the integrity of the jury deliberation, and whether deaf people can participate effectively. So we also conducted a mock-trial over two days in Sydney, involving a deaf juror and two interpreters. Our analysis revealed that the deaf juror participated actively, that the interpreters remained impartial, and many commented on the positive aspects of having a deaf juror.

“Our findings are clear – there is no impediment to deaf people serving as jurors, although the logistics would need to be managed carefully, and only the most experienced legal interpreters should work with deaf jurors. We also suggest that they should be bilingual – i.e. feel comfortable reading English.

“We have also suggested that not allowing deaf sign language users to serve as jurors is a human rights violation. We’ve already started to see the impact of our research – and provided our results to the Ministry of Justice. So we’re hopeful we will see law reform across the international landscape to allow deaf people to serve.

“Deaf people we interviewed overwhelmingly said they wanted to do jury service.”

Juliet England is a partially deaf freelance writer.