ROLE OF THE JURY

CRIMINAL CASES The Jury is used in less than 5% of Criminal Cases. Juries are used in criminal cases in the Crown Court where the defendant pleads

not guilty. There is a split function between the jury and the judge;

The jury decides the facts; The judge decides the law; The jury decides the verdict, guilty or not guilty: The judge decides the sentence.

The judge cannot place pressure upon the jury (Bushell’s case (1670) ‘juries cannot be ordered to convict against their conscience’. R v McKenna (1960)

Independent and free from pressure. Despite this they are still seen as symbolically important and fundamental part of the

English Legal System. The jury’s verdict can be unanimous or after necessary deliberation, by a majority of 10 to

2 or 11 to 1. Where the verdict is by majority, s.17(3) Juries Act 1974 states that the foreman of the jury

must state the verdict.

Hung Jury?

CIVIL JURIES

Less than 1% of civil cases are tried by jury. In civil cases the jury decides the issue of liability

and also the amount of damages to be paid. There are a number of problems

Juries may be biased against newspapers or well known personalities involved in libel cases.

The amount of damages is unpredictable and inconsistent.

Juries add heavily to the costs of the case. The losing party is likely to face a bill of hundreds and thousands of pounds.

JURIES – SELECTION

USE OF JURIES

There is a limited use of juries in civil cases in the High Court and County Court. The only civil cases in which there is a right to jury trial under The Supreme Court Act 1981 are: Defamation of Character.False Imprisonment.Malicious Prosecution. Fraud Cases

CORONERS COURT

Juries are used in the Coroners’ court to enquire into the deaths occurring in prison, police custody, industrial action.

To identify the person who died and secondly, how, when and where the person died.

JURY QUALIFICATION

Set out in the Jury Act 1974. To qualify for jury service you must be:

• Aged between 18 and 70• Registered to vote on the Register of Electors.•  Resident of the UK, Channel Islands or the Isle of Man for

at least five years since their 13th birthday.• Not disqualified

JURY DISQUALIFICATION

In addition, people are disqualified from jury service if they:

Have a serious convictionHave served a prison sentence in the last 10

years Mentally disordered persons (CJA 2003)

Are currently on Bail.

INELIGIBLE TO SERVE ON A JURY

Those suffering from mental disorder or who are not capable of managing their affairs.

The judiciary Can now be selected for jury service under the Criminal Justice

Act 2003 Others who are concerned in the administration of justice

within the last 10 years. Can now be selected for jury service under the Criminal Justice Act

2003 Religious Ministers and Members of Religious

Communities. Can now be selected for jury service under the Criminal Justice Act

2003

RIGHT TO BE EXCUSED FROM JURY SERVICE. These include:

Those over the age of 65.Those who have been on jury service during the past 2

years. Used to include:

Members of Parliament.Members of the Medical Profession.Members of the Forces.

These rights were removed by Criminal Justice Act 2003Those with religious beliefs that are incompatible with jury

service.

DISCRETIONARY EXCUSAL

This will only be granted if there is a good reason;Too ill to attend

Jury service can also be deferred where the date given is inconvenient.Because of examinationOr important business commitments. Can be deferred once must be re-taken within a

12 month period.

SELECTION OF JURY PANEL

Names are selected at random from the electoral register for the area in which the court is situated.

The selection is done by computer at the Central Summoning Bureau.

Jury then chosen at random where clerk calls out 12 names.

Those names chosen may be vetted for criminal convictions via the police computer data of criminal records.

In exceptional cases, a juror’s background and political affiliation may be vetted. This should only occur in cases involving national

security or terrorism.

CHALLENGES Both the prosecution and the defence can challenge individual

jurors for cause; s.12 Juries Act 1974. Where the potential juror has had previous dealings with the defendant or

has been involved in the case some way. There can also be a challenge to the array;

The whole jury panel on the basis that it was chosen in an unrepresentative or biased way; s.5 Juries Act 1976.

However, the fact that a jury does not contain any ethnic minority jurors is not a ground for challenge. (R v Ford (1989) this case is authority for preventing any meddling with the composition of jury panels, whether for reasons of race or sex.

The prosecution may stand by individual jurors until the jury has been empanelled, without giving a reason, but this right should be used sparingly;

The judge may discharge any juror whom he thinks lacks the capacity to act effectively as a juror; (s.9 Juries Act 1974).

PROBLEMS WITH SELECTION Not all people are registered to vote e.g young

ethnic minorities are homelessThe use of the electoral register excludes these.

Although the selection is random, this may not produce a cross-section of society.

Discretionary excusals Vetting is considered an invasion of privacy, but

the Court of Appeal has ruled that it is lawful. (R v Mason (1980).

ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES

Advantages DisadvantagesPublic Confidence Tried By Peers No Legal knowledge and

12 strangers

Jury Equity

Juries act in sympathy – R v Owen 1992

Decide cases on the presumption of fairness – Kronlid and Others and Ponting’s Case

Can reach perverse judgment which is not justified – R v Randle and Pottle

Openness Public is involved in the justice process

No reason given for verdict Verdict made in private no-one can inquire what has happened in the jury room.

Secrecy Jury free from pressure and undue influence from outsideS8 Contempt of Court Act 1981

No-way of knowing if jury understood case – see R v Young

ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGESAdvantages Disadvantages

Impartial Randomly selected – cross section of society

Not so if vetted.Number of excusals available means that it may not be a true reflection society.

Bias Some jurors could be biased against the police or a certain ethnic group. Sander v UK

Media May influence the Jury see R v Andrews, R V Taylor and Taylor 1993 – this can interfere with right to a fair trial Art 6 ECHR

Jury’s inability to understand the law

Runcimann Commission (1992)10% of Jurors found it difficult to understand what’s going on.

ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES

Advantages Disadvantages

Fraud Trials Notoriously Complex

Roskill Committee (1986) recommended the abolish of jury trial in such cases

Jury Nobbling Known to occur, however, if evidence of this then case can be heard by Judge alone CJA 2003

Expense Slow and Expensive

Jury Service Compulsory nature unpopular

ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES – CIVIL CASES

Civil Cases Advantages Disadvantages

Amount of damages Unpredictable – see Grobbelaar

Unreasoned decision No reason for award of such high damages.

Cost Jury Trial – Slow and Expensive

Bias Jury Biased against newspapers/magazines – see Grobbelaar

PROPOSAL FOR REFORMS

Review of Criminal Courts (2001) known as the Auld Review because it was conducted under the Sir Robin Auld. Jurors to be more widely representative of the

communities they represent, aim of the Jury provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

Provisions should be made to enable ethnic minorities representation of on juries where race may become an issue.

The jury have no right to acquit defendants in defiance of the law, see R v Kronlid & R Ponting.

Where the jury’s verdict appears to be perverse the prosecution should be granted an Appeal see R v Kronlid & R Ponting.

PROPOSAL FOR REFORMS

The defendant no longer have an elective right to trial by judge and jury in “either way” cases However, both the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bills were

defeated in the House of Lords. Trial for serious offences should remain to be heard by judge

and jury. Unless the defendant elects for Judge only.

FRAUD TRIALS In 1986 the Roskill Committee on Fraud Trials

recommended that serious and complex fraud trials should be decided by judge and two lay members that have specialist knowledge.

The Government of the day declined the recommendations of the Roskill Committee and instead introduced procedures to make it easier to follow such complex cases.

For example, George Walker former chief executive of Brent Walker who was found not guilty of a £19 million fraud charge, is reported as stating that he was sure the jury hadn’t properly understood much of the highly detailed material in the trial, as he admitted “I did not understand a lot of it, so I can’t see how they could.”

FRAUD TRIALS Sir Robin Auld recommended that in serious and complex fraud

trials, the nominated trial judge should have the power to direct the trial himself and two lay members drawn from the panel established by the Lord Chancellor or if the defendant requested it, by judge alone.

The White Paper proceeding the Criminal Justice Act 2003 claimed that the 15 – 20 complex fraud trials heard annually were best dealt with by a judge sitting alone. Section 43 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 allows the prosecution to

apply for a serious or complex fraud trial on indictment. The court must be satisfied that the length and complexity of the trial is likely

to prove burdensome upon a jury; These can also include other complex and lengthy trials. Therefore in the interests of justice serious consideration must be given to

conducting a trial without jury.

12 ANGRY MEN (1957)