juries

• History

  .Juries have been used since the Magna Carta in 2012

  .The Magna Carta was an agreement that limited King John’s power for the first time. It started that the King was subject to the law, not above it. It also enshrined the law that we should be tried by the people and not by the king.
• History cases

  .Bushell's case (1670) - the judge in this case violated the laws of the Magna Carta and tried to direct the jury to his own way of thinking. In this case it was held that jurors are ‘the sole arbitrators of fact’ (this means jurors should be the one who decide fact from fiction and shouldnt be influenced by judges) and should be free from judicial influence. 
• History cases

  .R V Wang (2005) - Wang walked through Heathrow airport with a samurai sword. He was charged with possession of a deadly weapon. The judge tried to persuade the jury to find him guilty. It was held by the Supreme court that there are no circumstances in which a judge can direct a guilty verdict. ( A judge can however direct the jury to a non-guilty verdict only if evidence is inadmissible ).
• Where are juries used

  1. Crown court - 12 jurors, hear the evidence of the facts on indictable trials (including either way cases which are being tried on indictment)
  2. High court of justice (KBD) - 12 jurors, hear evidence on a small number of civil disputes to decide liability. They also decide how much damages the loser pays the winner.
  3. Coroners court - 7-11 jurors, hear evidence on cause of certain deaths e.g. someone died in police custody.
  4. County court - 8 jurors, decide if the defendant is liable or not. (Has not been used in over 40 years)
• Role in the crown court

  .serious either way offences or indictable offences.

  .3% of criminal cases

  .Decide whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty beyond reasonable doubt but they have no role in sentencing.

  .Section 44 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 allows for trial by judge alone if there has been or is a risk of jury tampering - Heathrow Robbery Trial (2010)

  .Usually the jury always has to deliver a unanimous verdict, but can also reach majority verdicts since 1967.

  .Reason for majority verdicts being introduced was worry of jury nobbling - Heathrow robbery Trial (2010)
• Role in coroners court

  .7 and 11 members

  .The Coroners and Justice Act 2009 has provisions for changes to the use of juries in Coroners’ court. Under this a jury will be used only if : 

  >The deceased died while in custody and either : 

  >The death was violent or unnatural

  >The cause of death is unknown

  >The death resulted from an act or omission of a police officer.

  >The death was caused by a notifiable accident, poisoning or disease

  .The judge ,who is known as the Coroner, will commonly direct the jury as to which verdicts are available in a particular case.
• Case example of coroners court

  The trial itself is called an inquest. 

  .Example : Princess Diana (1996) - inquest lasted 6 months and cost taxpayers over £1 million
• Role in the civil court

  .Civil jury - less than 1%

  .Decide for or against the claimant and, in High Court, the award of damages 

  .Supreme Courts Act 1981 states that juries can be used in following Civil cases : 

  >Malicious prosecution 

  >False imprisonment

  >Fraud

  .S.11 of the Defamation Act 2013 removed defamation cases from jury trial 

  .The main reason why we do not use jurors in civil cases anymore is because of cost and complexity. In the Arrow Fraud Trial, jurors had to read over 1 million documents to understand the case.
• How jurors are chose - elegibility

  .Basic criteria comes under Juries Act 1974 : 

  >Anyone aged between 18 - 70 (however this was changed to 75 in the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015)

  >Lived in the UK since the age of 13 or has been living in the UK for 5 years (this is so jurors have cultural awareness and British values)

  >On the electoral register

  >Deemed to be of stable mind
• How jurors are chose - disqualification

  Comes under the Disqualification Act 1984 : 

  >People who have served a prison sentence of less than 5 years are banned for 10 years

  >People who have served a prison sentence of 5 or more years are banned for life 

  >If someone is on bail they are not allowed to do jury service

  >If someone is seeking rehabilitation for a drug problem they are not allowed to take part in jury service
• How jurors are chose - lack of capacity

  .Under S.(b)(2) of Juries Act 1974 : 

  >It was made clear that the mere fact someone has a disability doesn't mean they cannot be a member of the jury.

  >Re Osman case - this case discussed the point that disability should only be a problem if it stops someone being an effective juror

  >e.g A deaf person can have an interpreter in court
• How jurors are chose - discretionary excusal

  >When for example a person was having a baby or just booked a holiday, they could get a discretionary excusal so they choose not to do jury service

  >The next time they are asked they will have to do it

  >The delay is usually only for 6 months
• How jurors are chose - excused as a right

  >Before 2003, people like police officers, judges and CPS officers were excused as a right. However, Auld Report 2001 recommended reforms which were implemented into Criminal Justice Act 2003. This abolished the category. The Auld Report 2001 questioned why the most intelligent members of society don't serve as jurors. Now, only members of the armed forces have the choice whether they want to take part. Also, people aged between 65-75 could choose not to do it and those who have served as jurors in the last 2 years.
• Auld report case

  The case of R V Abdroikof and others 2007 questioned whether legal professionals create a risk of bias in the jury
• Selection of jurors

  .Jury summoning is done by a computer in London at the Jury Central Summoning Bureaux (JCSB)

  .If you get a summons (document detailing time/date and details of jury service), you must reply either stating you accept it or saying why you cannot do it. Failure to reply can result in a £1000 fine.

  .Vetting will then take place of all those who reply
• Vetting

  .There are two ways a jury can be vetted : DBS and Authorised Check

  .All jurors will undergo a DBS check, but if the case is politically sensitive or the judge feels its required for somebody to go through any further checks, then an authorised check is held

  .Key cases for vetting : 

  >ABC Trial 1978 - this case issued guidelines by the Attorney General on how vetting should take place so the judge cannot abuse the vetting process.

  >R V Obellim and others 1996 - vetting for jurors should take place before trial not after
• who can be challenged as a juror

  .Both the prosecution and defence can object to the jurors selected

  .This happens in the courtroom before the trial

  .There are three types of ways to stop someone serving as a juror : 

  >Challenge to the Array

  >Challenge for cause 

  >Stand by him
• Challenge to the array

  .Right is under S.5 of Juries Act 1974

  .This is challenged to the whole Jury

  .The only reason this can occur is if the selection of Jurors was not done at random and was biased

  .R V Danvers 1982 - Court of Appeal held that as long as selection is at random, you cannot challenge the jury if it is not multi-racial. In this case, the Defendant had tried to argue as he was of an ethnic minority, the fact his jury was all white would be problematic

  .Romford Trial 1992 - 9 out of 12 jurors were from the same area. In fact 4 were from the same street.
• Right to stand by

  .This right is only available to the prosecution

  .Allows those jurors who have been stood by to be put at the back of the line of potential jurors therefore, they will only be used if there are not enough jurors for the case .Prosecution doesn’t have to give a reason for doing so, but AG guidelines make it clear this right must be used sparingly. The Defence must be told reason for using this right
• Right to stand by case and changes

  .In the past, defence had this right too. However, some chose to abuse it. This was following the Bristol Riots in ST Pauls where the defence tried to select a multi racial jury using this method.
• Advantages Pt.1

  .Right to a fair trial Article 6 - been around since the Magna Carta 1215

  .It is ‘fundamental right to be tried by one’s peers’ Juries are randomly selected and a good cross section of society. As the electoral register is used, it has a good cross-section of society on it.

  .Public confidence - Heathrow robbery trial 2010 was the first trial used in 400 years with no jury caused outrage and people said ‘no jury no justice’. This shows how the public has confidence in the jury as it outraged the public. A few years ago, 80% of the public had confidence in the jury. 
• Advantages Pt.2

  .Secrecy of jury room - Due to juries being protected under S.8 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1981. They don't have to give a reason for their verdict so they are protected from being questioned by the prosecution and defence. This means less fear of jury tampering. This allows jurors to have open and honest discussions in the jury room. 
• Advantages Pt.3

  .Jury equity is where the juries follow the spirit of the law not the letter meaning juries use their heads not their hearts. R V Owen is an example of jury equity as the jury found Owen not guilty after he shot a man in the back as he had taunted Owen about his son’s death. This is a case where justice was seen to be done, not just done.
• Disadvantages Pt.1

  .Cross section - narrow pool of people who can be selected for the jury as the electoral register may not be as representative as we think due to working class and ethnic minorities tend to not register to vote. However, this has been improved since the Auld Report and CJA 2003 has tried to eliminate this disadvantage by abolishing excused as of right category.

  .Juries don't understand the law - R V Pryce (2013) in this case, the juries kept asking simple questions to the judge. The UCL survey said ⅓ of jurors didn't understand the law. 
• Disadvantages Pt.2

  .This is the opposite of jury equity as an advantage and is where jurors decide against the weight of the evidence. R V Ponting - in this case, Ponting told the press about the government committing war crimes.  The jury found Ponting not guilty as disclosed secrets of war crimes was in the public interest. 

  .Bias - Asylum Trial 2003 - guilty verdict due to the fact the jury didn't like asylum seekers.
• Disadvantages Pt.3

  .Secrecy of the jury room - due to juries being protected under S.8 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1981 they don't have to give a reason for their verdict so it could be because of anything. R V Young 1994 - jury tried to contact the dead victim with an ouija board and the next day gave a guilty verdict. However, the verdict was deemed to be unsafe. Joanna Frail - tried to contact the defendant5 on facebook and eventually was found guilty of contempt of court.
• Alternatives to juries

  .Trial by a judge - normally used for civil cases and in certain criminal cases in places like in Northern Ireland. It was also proposed in S.44 Criminal Justice Act 2003 and now takes place in those cases involving jury nobbling. However, the issue with this is that judges can become case hardened.

  .A panel of judges - some countries have panels of 3 or 5 judges to allow a mix of views and experience which stops personal bias.
• Alternatives to juries .

  .A judge plus lay assessors - method used in Scandinavian Countries. Lay assessor could be from the public or specialist from a particular field.

  .A mini jury using six members - may make decision making easier as less people. Spain reintroduced jurors in their courts with this system.

  .Professional jurors - professional jurors are those who would work full time as a juror however this could lead to them being case hardened.
• Challenged for cause

  .This is a challenged to individual jurors.Main reason for this could be the juror is found to be disqualified. However, other reasons include knowing a juror is related to the victim or defendant..Some argue as far as that if a juror has been a victim of a similar crime than the defendant is on trial for they shouldn't be allowed to serve (this isn't a law but a suggestion)