Disadvantages Trial by Jury Essay Model Answer

• Inconsistent and Unreliable (1)

  Subjective nature of juries mean that different jury panels could reach different decisions and could arguably lead to the defendant not receiving a fair trial. Since juries have no legal training or expertise, they may also make decisions without proper consideration of the legal impact. They can ignore evidence and reach perverse decisions which are wrong in law.

  The detrimental effects of this can be seen in R v Young where the jury found the D guilty of murder based on 'contacting' the victim by Ouija Board while drunk. In R v Owens, the jury found the D not guilty of attempted murder because they sympathised with his reason for trying to kill v. These are decisions which completely contradict the law and undermine confidence in the legal system
• Secrecy of the Jury Deliberation Room

  Contempt of Court Act 1981 makes it a criminal offence for jurors to discuss the process by which they reached their verdict. As a result, potential problems with juries such as not being able to understand a judge's direction, will not be identified. It will never be certain whether jurors are actually fulfilling their role or not. They don't need to give reasons for their verdict or explain why they reached a particular verdict.

  In the case of R v Mizra, the HL ruled that there could not be enquiries into discussions taken place in the jury room even though a juror had stated that from the start of the case the other juroras thought the used of the interpreter was a 'ploy'
• Media Influence

  Coverage of high profile cases by the media may influence a jury decision. The cases will have likely been reported in the media for a considerable amount of time before the case even comes to court. This makes it hard for the jury to only use evidence presented in the case as they do not have the professional training to resist such influences. For example, in the case of R v West the first killing happened in 1967 with West only being charged in 1994. Throughout this period, local and national newspapers had reported on missing persons related to the case and clearly the jury risk being influenced by this press coverage. West tried to argue that this in itself denied her a right to a fair trial in front of a jury but the Court of Appeal held that correct decisions by the judge would ensure fairness prevailed.
• Juries are Acquittal Minded

  The standard of proof in criminal trials is beyond all reasonable doubt and so very high meaning that if the jury has any doubt then they should find the d not guilty. Perhaps due to lack of legal expertise and the worry of convicting an innocent person, d's are more likely to be acquitted.

  Typically, juries acquit 60% of d's compared with only 20% acquitted in the Magistrates court. In the interests of justice it is better to be cautious and find the d not guilty than take an innocent person's freedom, but the downside could be that a guilty person is acquitted and released back into society simply because of a very convincing defence barrister.

  In contrast, the vast majority of acquittals in the Crown Court are the result of the judge stopping the trial due to insufficient evidence being presented by the prosecution so the statistic is misleading.
• Jury Nobbling (1)

  Jury nobbling is any process by which the jury is influenced in reaching its verdict e.g. bribes or threats of violence. Jurors do not get special protection and their identity could be discovered through a trial so the threat of nobbling whether real or imagined means that jurors may vote based on threats rather than justice. Although it is claimed that jury nobbling is not a problem in the Crown Court, in the interests of justice, the government has introduced legislation aimed at controlling it. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 made it a criminal offence to intimidate or harm a juror, physically or financially. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 allows a case to be heard by a single judge where there is a real risk of jury nobbling.
• Jury Nobbling (2)

  As a result of possible jury nobbling, the first criminal trial without a jury to take place in England and Wales in more than 400 years began in January 2010 - R v Twomley. The defendant had faced trial on charges in connection with robbery 3 times already, at a cost of more than £20m. However, in the last trial the judge made allegations of jury tampering.