Juries

• Jury Qualifications

  • Eligible
  • Mentally Disordered
  • Disqualified
  • Incapable
  • Excusals
  • Deferrals
  • Excuse by Profession
• Eligible

  s1 Juries Act 1974 (amended by CJA 2003)

  1. Aged between 18 and 75
  2. UK resident for 5 consecutive years
  3. On the Electoral Register
• Mentally Disordered

  People who are mentally disordered (Mental Health Act 1983) are unfit for jury service.

  1. Psychopathic Disorder
  2. Resident of a mental institute
• Disqualified

  Juries Act 1974 (amended by CJA 2003)

  Temporary or permenant.
• Temporary Disqualification

  1. Sentenced to imprisonment for under 5 years
  2. On bail
• Incapability

  A physical disability which interferes with their role.

  • Being blind
  • Language barrier
• Excusal


  s9 Juries Act 1974 allows someone to apply for a discretionary excusal which means they will be permanently excused from service.

  • Lacking capacity
  • Physical or mental disability
  • Completed jury service in past 2 years
  • Absence from work would result in unusual hardship
• Deferral

  s9 Juries Act 1974 allows for a temporary deferral meaning their jury service will be postponed until a more convenient time.

  • Religious holiday
  • Pre booked holiday
  • Exam
  • Work commitments
  • Childcare
• Excuse by profession

  Prior to CJA 2003, judges, lawyers and police officers couldn't sit on a jury but the act stopped this.
• How are Jury members selected?

  • Central Juror Summoning Bureau (CJSB) selects names from the Electoral Register
  • Summons sent to names chosen
  • Must notify court if they cannot attend
  • Expected to attend for a minimum of 10 working days
• Vetting

  Vetting means checking. There are 2 types of checks:

  1. Police checks
  2. Conviction = disqualified
  3. Wider background checks
  4. Need permission from Attorney General
  5. Only carried out for cases involving terrorism or threats to national security.
• Challenging the jury:

  1. Challenge to the array
  2. Challenge for cause
• Stand by for the Crown

  The prosecution can ask for an individual juror to step out and not serve for the moment.

  • Juror placed at bottom of the list of the 15 jurors that were selected
  • No reason is needed
• Swearing in a jury

  Court clerk will swear in the jury by asking each juror to:

  1. Swear an oath on a holy book
  2. Take an affirmation (Non-religious)

  Both religious and non-religious people promise to give a verdict based upon the evidence presented to them.
• Concerns on the use of Juries

  • Internet research is easy
  • Sharing research with other jurors secretly is easy
• Solutions to Jury Concerns

  The Criminal Justice and Courts Act [2015] states:

  • Judge can order devices be handed in before retiring to jury room
  • Jury officer has the right to search jurors
  • Criminal offence to:
  • Research a trial on the internet
  • Share researched information with fellow jurors.
• PROS of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act [2015]

  • Acts as a deterrent; preventing people from conducting research
  • Little effort for a Judge to ask
  • Supports D's right to a fair trial in a technological age
  • Shows faith in system if decision made is uninfluenced
  • Prevents technologically literate jurors influencing others
• CONS of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act [2015]

  • Access to internet so wide, unlikely risk is totally removed
  • Jurors may hear about the case on the news
  • Some jurors not technologically literate = Act has little impact
  • A juror could need a device if their wife is pregnant
  • Implies that jurors are not trustworthy
• Permanent disqualification

  1. Detained at His Majesty’s Pleasure for life or Whole Life Order
  2. Sentenced to imprisonment for 5 years or more
• Temporary disqualification

  1. On bail
  2. Sentenced to imprisonment or a suspended sentence for under 5 years
• Challenge to the array


  This is a challenge to the whole jury, if it was chosen in a biased or unrepresentative way.

  Romford jury, R v Fraser
• Romford jury


  9 jurors were from Romford. 2 jurors lived on the same street.
• R v Fraser [1987]


  D was of a black or minority ethnic (BAME) background but all the jurors were white.
• Challenge for cause


  This is a challenge to an individual juror for valid reasons such as Disqualification.

  R v Wilson and Sprason.
• R v Wilson and Sprason [1995]


  A juror’s husband was a police officer at the prison where D’s were on remand.

  The jury convicted both D’s.

  Court allowed appeal against conviction.
• A jury of 12 people hears indictable and triable either way offences in the Crown Court, where D plead not guilty.

  This equates to about 30,000 cases per year, which is less than 2 % of all criminal cases.
• The jury is the only decider of guilt. They must try the case purely on the basis of the evidence which they hear in court. They promise to do this in the oath or affirmation taken.
• No one is allowed to influence the jury’s decision making, including the Judge. The Judge must accept the verdict regardless if they agree or not. This has been clear since Bushell’s case. The jury do not give a reason for their decision.
• The jury must listen to the judge‘s summing up at the end of the case, as well as following their guidance on any points of law involved in the case.
• The jury must listen to the evidence of both the Prosecution and Defence. At the end of the Prosecution case, the Judge can direct the jury to acquit D if there is insufficient evidence. This is called a directed acquittal, which only happens in about 10% of cases, such as R v Counsell. The jury must follow the Judge’s order to do this.
• The jury must retire to the jury room to consider their verdict in secret. The Contempt of Court Act 1981 makes it an offence to disclose the content of any discussions in the jury room with anyone outside.
• At the end of the trial, the jury must elect a foreman whose role is to control discussion in the jury room and publicly announce the verdict in open court. If it is a split verdict, they must say the number of jurors who agree and disagree. The Juries Act 1974 says this to ensure that the jury have reached a legal majority.
• The jury’s main job is to react a verdict of guilty or not guilty.
• Initially the judge will direct the jury to reach a unanimous verdict, 12-0. The Criminal Justice Act 1967 says that if after 2 hours, the jury can’t, the judge can accept a majority verdict, 11-1 or 10-2. These verdicts were introduced to stop jury nobbling.
• A hung jury, where less than 9 agree, is a mistrial and the case is dismissed. D will face a retrial in front of a new jury. This happened in R v Sion Jenkins [2004].