Imperfect as it seems at times, the value of the jury system has been given a significant tick by law experts at the University of Otago.

Research has persuaded law professor Kevin Dawkins that, if anything, the system needs refining rather than rethinking.

His work follows several high-profile trials this year, notably those of David Bain, Clayton Weatherston and Taito Philip Field which have tested the ability of juries to manage complex evidence, emotions, time commitments and then deliver justice.

Describing his research in the University of Otago Magazine this month, Prof Dawkins admitted beginning his research in a sceptical frame of mind.

He worried about the high rates of jurors being excused from duty, mostly for employment reasons, and whether the pool of decision-makers was “less-than-optimally-competent”.

He also had reservations about their ability to grapple with complex laws.

Prof Dawkins has dispelled the myth of jurors being doddery and unemployable, citing a Law Commission study that showed 80.8 percent of jurors where employed and 55 percent held tertiary qualifications.

Beneficiaries accounted for only 32 percent, retirees 4.5 percent and those on “home duties” 3.5 percent.

After examining cases where jury decisions were especially controversial, Prof Dawkins says many of the problems were not the fault of the jury at all.

“We have seen examples where the judges have decided to suppress evidence, presumably on the grounds juries could not be trusted to attach the appropriate weight to it.

“We have seen defences run which should have been ruled out by the trial judge. By even allowing a defence to be put forward, the judge affords it some legitimacy.”

Russia, Spain and Japan have all recently overturned their judge-alone systems in favour of juries.

To evaluate the performance and decision-making of juries is not easy, but juries prevent the law from becoming a mechanical process and that’s a big plus.