I’m not surprised if juries are becoming less constrained by protocols. Some jurors probably turn off to anything they’re told after their initial briefing when they are empanelled.

As a lawyer I’ll never be allowed to see it from the inside, but a friend told me of his shock at PC aspects* of the process (*see the update below).

He was first penned in with a mass of prospects who’d answered the summons to jury duty. They eyed each other, comparing notes on the best ways to provoke a challenge to escape without being caught in a trial. Some had chosen dodgy clothing. Others put their faith in goofy postures or mannerisms.

Off-hand staff then switched on a video outlining the role, and left (for a fag he suspects). The patronising video spooled through, first in English, then Maori, then Samoan, then Tongan, and he thinks other languages.

There was no one to answer the legitimate question of one disgruntled prospect – "why would someone who can’t understand enough English to hear these instructions be allowed to decide on guilt or innocence in a trial conducted in English".

The video carried on, completing two full rotations before the bored staff returned to switch it off.

PC idiocy at work does not encourage people to think that the rules matter.

[Update – Another friend has given more background. He says the video actually tells people in lots of languages to make themselves known to staff if they have trouble understanding English. That sounds sensible, not PC. It would be good to have a recent authoritative report.]