juries

• the jury system has been at the centre of our justice system for hundreds of years, as such it carries a symbolic impotrance
• qualification

  juries act 1974 as amended by the criminal justice act 2003

  in order to receive a jury summons a person must be :

  • 18-75 years old
  • registered on the electoral register
  • resident in UK for 5 years from age 13
• not qualified

  not eligible if :

  • have a mental disorder

  disqualified if :

  • on bail
  • served 5 or more years in prison
  • been in prison for public protection

  cannot serve for 10 years after serving :

  • suspended sentence
  • community order
  • any time in prison
• deferral

  • anyone can apply to defer (delay) their jury service they will then carry out their jury service in the next twelve months
  • a deferral needs to be for a good reason - exams, operation or pre-booked holiday
• excusal

  • a person can be excused from jury service for 12 months this effectively means that the person requires a further random selection before he is summonsed again it is only available in exceptional circumstances
  • an excusal may be possible if a person has already served in the previous two years is a full time member of the armed force or a member of parliament
• selection process

  • summons - nearly 500,000 people receive a summons each year through the post from the jury central summoning bureau - this is a random selection from names on the electoral register
  • identity confirmed
  • 15 chosen at random
  • 12 randomly selected
  • sworn in - it is important that the jury is independent and impartial which is why they are randomly selected
• vetting

  • a DBS check is automatically carried out to check no one is disqualified- practice approved in R v Mason [1980]
  • am authorised jury check may also be carried out with approval of the attorney general - this is only where the case concerns a matter of national security this may involve looking at special branch records and a security services check
• challenging

  there are also challenges that can be made by the prosecution and the defence to the makeup of the jury

  • challenge for cause is where an individual juror is challenged for a cause or reason
  • challenge to the array is very rare such a challenge would be made if the whole jury is considered to be unrepresentative
  • the prosecution also has the right to ask jurors to stand by usually after jury vetting has taken place - this should only be used in conjunction with vetting or where the juror is clearly unsuitable and the defence agree
• role of the jury

  • allow defendant to be tried by his equals
  • jury must listen to the evidence and submissions from the barristers
  • jury must listen to the judges’ summing up
  • jury must decide the facts of the case
  • jury must apply the law as explained to them by the judge to the facts
  • after the judge sums up the case they retire to the jury room
  • the jury will then have a secret discussion in order to come to their verdict
  • the jury will come a verdict will be one of guilty or not guilty based on the facts
  • jury decision should be unanimous (all 12 agree)
• The four man of the jury will then make a public announcement of the verdict in open court
• Bushell’s Case [1670]

  • A jury refused to convict two Quakers who had been preaching in the street of unlawful assembly
  • the judge threatened the jury with being locked up if they did not convict
  • the jury still refused to convict and were duly locked up
  • bushell the foreman of the jury petitioned another court for their release
  • his application was accepted and the court held that jurors could not be puni shed for a reaching a decision the judge did not like
• R v F [2009]

  • only evidence presented at trial can be taken into account
  • D’s conviction was quashed after two jurors were seen talking to a law student who was watching the trial
• juries in civil cases

  • juries are also used in civil cases although this is rare under the senior courts at 1981 jewellery trial can occur in case cases of malicious prosecution, false imprisonment and fraud
• advantages of juries

  • one advantage of the jury is that it allows public participation in the justice system this is an advantage because it increases public confidence in the system. However juries are only used in small a proportion of cases.
• advantages of juries

  • you can decide cases according to their own conscience is rather than the letter of the law. This is important as it allows the jury to reject prosecutions they see as unjustified or politically motivated for example the jury in R v Kronlid [1996] found free women who caused £1.5 million worth of damage to a hawk fighter plane not guilty of criminal damage as the aircraft was to be sold to the oppressive regime in Indonesia, this shows that juries provide a balance against the power of the government
• disadvantages of juries

  • a disadvantage is that juries do not have to give reasons for their decisions although this speeds up the trip process, it means that individual jewellers could give their verdict on a whim rather than according to the law there is no way of finding out about this unless a juror complaints for example in R v Young [1995] it came to light that a jury had consulted a Ouija board in an attempt to contact the deceased victim
• disadvantages of juries

  • juries can sometimes arrive at perverse verdicts research by Baldwin and McConnell in 1979 found that up to 25% of acquittals were questionable this can be argued to damage public confidence in the jury system
  • there are concerns that jurors may lack to do an effective job for example during the trial of Vicky Pryce for perverting the course of justice the jewellery submitted to the judge a list of questions which showed that they had what the judge “absolutely fundamental deficits of understanding” of the trial particular problem in cases where the evidence complex
• alternatives to jury trial

  • a single judge or a panel of judge : (+) quicker, perverse verdict less likely, eliminate during nobbling (-) remove public participation
  • professional jurors : (+) quicker, perverse verdict less likely, eliminate during nobbling (-) remove public participation
  • single judge with two expert lay assessors : (+) preserve lay participation legally correct verdicts (-) remove public participation