evaluation of juries

• Advantage- Public confidence in the legal system. Trial by peers is a fundamental principle of the British legal system, it is a bastion of liberty against the state and has been supported by Lord Devlin who said that a jury system is the, "Lamp that shows that freedom lives.".
• Advantage- the jury can make the 'right decision'. Jury members are not legal experts, they are not bound by the rules of precedent or even acts of parliament and do not need to give reasons for their verdict, they can decide a case based on their own ideas of fairness.
• What two cases show the fact that juries can decide the decision of their cases based on their own ideas of fairness?

  R v Randle and Pottle, and, R v Kronlid
• Advantage- the use of a jury is viewed as making the legal system more open:

  1. Justice is seen to be done as members of the public are involved in a key role and the trial takes place in public.
  2. it keeps the law clearer as points have to be explained to the jury, this enables the defendant to also understand the case more clearly.
• Advantage- the secrecy of the jury room:

  The discussion on the jury on the verdict of a case takes place in secret in the jury room. the criminal justice and courts act 2015 makes it a criminal offence to disclose or solicit or obtain any particulars of statements made, opinions expressed, arguments advanced or votes cast by members of a jury in the course of legal proceedings. As such, juries are free from pressure in their discussion, this allows them freedom to ignore strict interpretations of the law.
• Advantage- the representative nature of a jury:

  Juries are much more representative of all sections of society than professional judges or lay magistrates. the age limits of jury service are very wide, 18-74 years of age, so there is more likely to be a wide range of ages on a jury. members of a jury will usually have a wide range of social backgrounds, in contrast to the judiciary.
• Disadvantage- the method of which juries are selected isnt always representative:

  The method of selecting jurors is open to criticism as it doesnt always give a representative sample of the populations-

  • This methods excludes some people who arent eligible to vote, such as the homeless or people who choose to to register to vote.
  • it is debatable whether those who are on lower incomes or are unemployed are sufficiently represented.
• Disadvantage- juries can make a perverse decision:

  The fact that juries make decision based on their own ideas of fairness can lead to perverse verdicts that cant be rationalised or justified- even in cases that appear to be very clear cut. this can have an adverse impact on public confidence.
• What case shows how juries can make perverse decisions?

  R v Randle & pottle
• The secrecy of the jury room can be a disadvantage:

  • No reason has to be given for a verdict, there is no way of knowing if the jury understood the case and have come to their decision for the right reasons.
  • there can be no investigation of any possible malpractice within the jury room
• What case gives an example of where there was malpractice within the jury room?

  R v Young (Stephen)- here the jurors tried to perform a seance to contact the deceased to find out who had killed them, delivering a guilty verdict. when the court of appeal found about the seance, a retrial was ordered after a quashed conviction
• What case gives an example of where there was a biased jury member?

  R v Gregory 1993
• One or more jurors on a panel may have a prejudice that can affect the deliberations and therefore the verdict. it may be a bias against the police, or racial prejudice. however, if this is only shown in the jury room, there can be no appeal or investigation made.
• Media influence of the case a jury is sitting on may influence the jury. this is especially true in high-profile cases where there has been lots of publicity about police investigations.
• Give two examples of where the media may have influenced the jurors, were the convictions upheld?

  R v West- convictions were upheld

  R v Taylor and Taylor- Convictions were quashed
• what is the significance of the case of R v Twomey and others 2009?

  It shows that how under section 44 of the criminal justice act 2003, the prosecution may apply for the trial to be heard by a judge alone if there has been an effort to tamper with the jury
• The runciman comission's reports have shown that approx 10% of jurors admitted difficulties with cases.
• The roskill committee in 1986 recommended abolishing juries in fraud cases as the evidence is complex, but they are still there.