Letter: Trial by jury
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: James Strachan (letter, 17 May) is to be admired for the exceptional way in which he has overcome his own handicap. Unfortunately, many deaf people do not have the same skills and facilities. After a lifetime coping with deafness, I know that most deaf people do not communicate by sign language. Lip-reading is a difficult skill to master and almost impossible to practise in adverse circumstances.
In a courtroom one needs to "hear" judge, counsel, barristers, defendant, witnesses; not just hear some of what they say but every single word, every nuance. The various speakers are in different positions, possibly in different lighting conditions, some even behind screens. All these factors are crucial to the deaf.
The jury room presents serious problems for those dependent upon a hearing aid or lip-reading. With the possible exception of those who use sign language, jury service presents insuperable problems to most people who have severe deafness. If it is ever my misfortune to be a defendant in court I would certainly challenge any juror with defective hearing.
Mr Strachan envisages every courtroom being equipped with "adequate communication support". Can this expense be justified? Would it really enable all deaf people to "understand and comprehend" as clearly as a person with good hearing? I rather doubt it.
GORDON HOLDEN
Croydon, Surrey
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments