juries

• the independence of the jury came from BUSHELLS case saying that juries are to be completely independent and cannot be influenced by judges
• juries are used in the crown court for criminal trials

  they decide the innocence of the defendant or not

  there are 12 members on a jury
• a jury member must have the basic qualifications which are set out in the juries act 1974
• these qualifications are that

  • they are aged 18-75
  • they are on the electoral roll
  • they have lived in the UK for at least 5 years since their 13th birthday
• some people can be disqualified for reasons

  • can be disqualified for life - if had a prison sentence of more than 5 years
  • disqualified for 5 years - if served a custodial sentence for less then 5 years
  • can be disqualified whilst on bail
• some people cannot do jury service and they are to be:

  • deferred - if have a hospital appointment then can be deferred and will have to do it again within 12 months
  • excused - if a person is ill or old then can be excused
  • mentally disordered people are ineligible to be on a jury - if have a psychopathic disorder then cant be on jury
  • incapacity - a judge might remove someone from the jury if not capable of coping with the case e.g if blind or deaf
• a jury is selected at random from the electoral register and if you dont respond within 7 days then you get a £1000 fine

  they must attend for 2 weeks or until the end of the trial
• 15 jurors are selected at random and are allocated to a court

  12 of them are chosen at random and those 12 will sit on a jury and the other 3 are sent to the waiting room and might be chosen for another trial
• vetting is where the prosecution and the defence teams have the right to see the jury list

  may decide that some of the jurors need to be 'vetted' meaning need to be checked for suitability
• there are two types of checks

  • police checks - which is a routine check
  • wider background checks - however permission from the attorney general is required
• police checks

  r v mason - jurors may be checked for criminal records
• vetting should only be used for

  • national security issues
  • terrorist cases
  • only with the permission of the attorney general
• challenging to the array

  the right to challenge was set out in s5 juries act 1974

  both the pros and defence teams can challenge the jury on the basis that it has been chosen in a biased way
• challenge for cause - used by both pros and defence


  challenges the individual right of an individual juror to sit on the jury

  must point out a valid reason of why that juror should not serve

  if it is an obvious reason then the juror is disqualified

  a challenge can be made if the juror knows or is related to a witness or a defendant
• prosecutions right to stand by jurors

  this is a right that only the prosecution can exercise

  juror is put on 'stand-by' and is put at the end of the potential jurors

  they will not be used on the jury unless there are not enough other jurors

  pros doesnt have to give reason for 'standing by'
• jurors are people who do not require any legal knowledge and that the judge will assist them with any points of law that they dont understand
• juries are only used in about 1% of criminal cases and they tend to be used for serious cases such as murder, rape and GBH

  trials take place in the crown court with a jury of 12

  they decide if the defendant is guilty or by based upon what the pros and defence team says
• the jury has to reach a unanimous verdict but under the criminal justice act 1967, it allows for majority verdict such as 10-2 or 11-1
• majority verdicts are only acceptable if the jury have been deliberating for more than 2 hours

  if there are 9 jurors then has to be unanimous but if more than that then it has to be a majority such as 11-1 or 10-1
• majority verdicts were introduced to prevent jury tampering - this is where the jury is bribed or threatened into making a decision
• jury discussion takes place in secret

  there is no inquiry into how the jury reached its verdict

  it is a criminal offence to intentionally disclose or ask about anything that happens in the jury room