Our criminal justice system depends on the jury system. Before a person can be found guilty, 12 of their peers must unanimously decide on guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

In my experience, the system works. In terms of results, juries tend to make sensible decisions and give the accused a fair trial.

But what occurs in the jury room may be a different story. I have never sat on a jury because, in Queensland at least, if you are a lawyer you cannot.

Following a recent trial in the Maroochydore District Court, I bumped into a friend who told me how a significant personality clash affected the outcome.

It raises the question: Should there be a referee in the jury room?

Juries have rules to follow. The Sydney trial of former chauffeur Gordon Wood, who is accused of murdering model Caroline Byrne, had to be aborted this week because a juror contacted a reporter and informed them of "bullying” that was occurring in the jury room.

In addition, apparently one juror had already made it known that they believed the accused was guilty before the trial had concluded.

The judge decided that a fair trial was not likely, despite all members of the jury denying contacting the media.

The result is a new trial at significant cost to the community.

In another case last month in New South Wales, a trial was aborted because jury members were playing Sudoku during the hearing.

If bullying and personality clashes are common and can affect the outcome of a trial, would the process be improved by a 13th person whose role was to facilitate and supervise the deliberations?