# Support for Jurors: NCPS Provides Evidence to Support the Justice & Home Affairs Committee

Publications 

Politics, Government & Current Affairs 

By Meg Moss

12th October 2026

The Society submitted evidence in support of the work of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee in their inquiry around support for jurors.

Our submission on the parliament.uk website [can be found here](https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/169276/pdf/), as well as the full text below.

The NCPS is a PSA Accredited Register holder and one of the UK's largest professional bodies for counsellors & psychotherapists. Therapists on our Register are bound by our ethical framework, practice requirements, and complaints processes. Trauma is the single most common area of specialism across our membership.

We've addressed the questions that fall within our remit, and left the questions on selection, evidence types and the practicalities of attendance to those better placed to answer them.

The Society would welcome the chance to support this work, and would gladly act as a standing resource to the Committee, HMCTS and the MoJ on the design of juror support and on what safe, relational practice looks like.

#### What health and/or mental health impact does the experience of being a juror have on people? Are some categories of jurors (defined e.g. by age or past experience of criminality) particularly likely to be impacted? What data exists on this impact? What responsibility does the state hold in relation to jurors’ wellbeing before, during, and after jury service, and where is that responsibility allocated?

Jury service is unlike almost any other exposure to traumatic material. People are chosen randomly, required to attend, without access to the ordinary ways people process distressing information. Manchester Metropolitan University found a fourfold increase in signs of post traumatic stress disorder among mock jurors following short-term exposure to murder-case material; the impact could also surface week or months later, therefore the option to access support should be available for a longer period of time after service has finished.

Currently, the responsibility is spread between HMCTS, the individual court, and the juror's own GP, which leaves fairly large gaps for people to fall through. In our view, support should be clearly outlined for jurors, indicating what is available, when, and how they can access it, with the responsibility held by the state given the compelled nature of jury service, and available both during and after service.

#### What dedicated health and/or mental health support exists for juries before, during, and after trials? How does support for juries compare to support for others in the Criminal Justice System (e.g. police, lawyers, victims, judges, court staff)?

The Ministry of Justice's Enhanced Support for Jurors pilot was a step in the right direction. A development of a similar offering should take on board learning from the pilot, but also offer greater choice of counsellor to the jurors to better allow for a positive therapeutic relationship, as well as choice about the type of therapy offered, which we note is already a recommendation.

#### What studies have been conducted (by the Government, devolved governments, or others) on support for jurors and what action is the Government taking? What interaction has there been between psychologists/health care professionals and governments or courts services on the impact of the experience of being a juror upon jurors? What alternative or additional support could be made available to jurors and what are the costs/implications of this support? How do current rules around discussing deliberations impact support available to jurors?

Good therapeutic support is relational, timely, and delivered by those who are properly trained to do so. Six sessions is generally considered the standard, although short term, or brief, therapy can work well for some people, with a clear route on to longer-term therapy where it's needed.

One of the key factors that makes for effective therapy is that the person accessing therapy has choice and autonomy around who they work with, and the type of therapy they receive. One size does not fit all. The NCPS work with a suicide postvention Charity that operate a service in this manner if it would be helpful to learn from their best practice approach.

The workforce to deliver this already exists and has capacity; there are over 75,000 qualified counsellors & psychotherapists on PSA Accredited Registers across the UK, already bound by ethical frameworks and robust complaints processes, already doing this trauma work.

One option worth the Committee's attention is to draw on that existing, decentralised capacity through direct-access and community commissioning routes: connecting jurors quickly to a qualified practitioner near them, with a real choice of who they see, rather than a single central provider. The per-juror cost of doing this well is modest, especially against the cost of leaving trauma unaddressed.

#### What differences are there between England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland in relation to support for jurors, and are there lessons to be learned from them, or from common law jurisdictions outside the UK? Are further rules or guidance required to ensure that jurors are not selected for trials that they are likely to find traumatic, or not exposed to potentially distressing evidence in ways that are unnecessary for the fair administration of justice? What form should such rules or guidance take?

The problems created by the fact that there are currently no exceptions for a juror to speak about their experiences are twofold: processing trauma often means being able to give an account of the specific thing that was distressing, and the law currently forbids that, so there is no possibility for a juror who is struggling to cope with the traumatic information they have heard to access any support. The ‘solicit or obtain’ element of current legislation impacts both practitioner and juror; a counsellor who invites a juror to talk through what happened, or who simply receives it, is potentially within the offence too.

Whether or not a prosecution would ever follow such a disclosure, the uncertainty makes those who need support less likely to want to access it, and those who could offer it less likely to undertake to do so. The secrecy rule exists to safeguard candid deliberation and to shield jurors from reprisals; neither would be impacted by a juror speaking, in confidence, to a registered practitioner who is bound by confidentiality through their own Code of Ethics. For clarity, confidentiality within the therapeutic context may be broken if there is a risk to life, a safeguarding concern, or a court order; none of those would apply in these contexts. Victoria's Juries Act 2000 allows a former juror to disclose deliberation material to a registered medical practitioner or psychologist in the course of support for issues arising from their service, and requires that practitioner not to disclose it to anyone else; Queensland does the same for a health professional, and the Federal Court of Australia describes disclosure to a health professional in the course of getting support as the main exception to the secrecy rule.

We would therefore support a model that allows for disclosure to a qualified, registered practitioner (someone on a PSA Accredited Register or a statutorily regulated profession), alongside a continuing duty of confidence. The 2015 Act already frames its exceptions narrowly and precisely, and already lets the Lord Chancellor specify additional permitted recipients by regulation, subject to the Lord Chief Justice's consent and to Parliament; as drafted that power is confined to the misconduct-and-appeal route, so it couldn't be used as is, but it does show the architecture for a proportionate, safeguarded addition is already there, whether as a new express exception or an equivalent, narrow regulation-making power.

In terms of live proceedings, where there could be concerns around e.g. prejudice, we would note that a confidential, clinical conversation is quite different to a public comment. It's also worth adding that the position isn't currently uniform across the UK as section 8 of the Contempt of Court Act was retained for Scotland and Northern Ireland, and Scotland already offers jurors access to a specialist counselling service on referral from a judge.

Ultimately it’s important that jurors, and the practitioners supporting them, get clear and lawful permission for therapeutic support that allows the juror to be open and candid about the impacts of the case, in order for the support offered to have the opportunity to work effectively, as well as choice about the therapist they see and the type of therapy offered to support a positive therapeutic relationship and better outcomes for the recipient of the support.