14-Juries Flashcards
What did magna carta say that is relevant to juries?
Person’s right to trial by ‘the lawful judgement of his peers’.
Key points in the historical development of juries.
1215- Magna Carta recognises right to trial by ‘lawful judgement of peers’
1670-Bushell’s Case (1670) est. independence of the jury (attempt to imprison jurors was successfully appealed against)
1960-R v McKenna (1960) More modern version of Bushell’s case.
1974-Juries Act 1974-consolidated law relating to juries.
Bushell’s Case (1670)
What is the significance of this case to juries?
Principle: established the independence of the Jury.
Facts: Members of jury that did not agree with decision were arrested but this was deemed to be incorrect as the jury is independent.
What historical case established the independence of the jury?
Bushell’s Case (1670)
Facts: Members of jury that did not agree with decision were arrested but this was deemed to be incorrect as the jury is independent.
What case is a modern example of the principle that the jury is independent?
R v McKenna (1960)
Facts: Judge threatened jury with a time limit saying they’d be locked in all night if they didn’t. Held to be unsafe ruling when jury found D guilty.
R v McKenna (1960)
What is the case an example of?
Modern example of principle of independent jury.
Facts: Judge threatened jury with a time limit saying they’d be locked in all night if they didn’t. Held to be unsafe ruling when jury found D guilty.
What Act consolidated the laws concerning Juries?
Juries Act 1974
What are the basic quals jury members must have?
1) Aged 18-75
2) Registered voter
3) Ordinary UK resident for at least 5 years after 13th birthday.
What circumstances disqualify someone from being on a jury?
1) Certain serious prisoners and offenders-permanent DQ
2) Certain prisoners and offenders-10 year DQ
3) Mental disorders-s1-3 CJA 2003 explains rules for this.
What offences or sentences will DQ someone from jury service permanently?
1) Imprisoned for life
2) Extended sentence
3) Prison 5 years or more
What offences or sentences will DQ someone from jury service for 10 years?
1) Any prison in last 10 years
2) Suspended sentence in last 10 years
3) Community order in last 10 years
What Act sets out the circumstances that someone with a ‘mental disorder’ is DQ’d from being on a jury?
s1-3 Criminal Justice Act 2003
In conjunction with Mental Health Act 1983
What specific sections in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 explain the conditions that DQ someone from jury service on grounds of mental illness?
s1-Mental illness that means:
(a) -resident in a hospital
(b) -regularly attends treatment
s2-under guardianship under s7 Mental Health Act 1983
s3-can’t admin own affairs under s7 Mental Health Act 1983
R v Williamson (2007)
What is the significance of this case to juries?
Demonstrates: that police officers and other admins of justice on juries can be possible risk of bias.
Facts: Police officer from same station as officer on case.
What case demonstrates that there can be a risk of bias if police or other admins of justice are on juries?
R v Williamson (2007)
Facts: Police officer from same station as officer on case.
Hanif v UK (2012)
What is the significance of this case regarding juries?
Demonstrates: that even if police on jury is legal, can still be seen as unfair trial.
Facts: Police man on jury knew key witness and D was found guilty-guilty verdict found to be in contravention of Article 6 ECHR (right to a fair trial).
What are the ways jurors can be vetted?
1) Police checks-R v Mason (1980)
2) Wider background checks-for national security ABC Trial 1978
What case is an example of vetting the jury by police checks?
R v Mason (1980)
Facts: Police doing routine background checks on jurors were found to be working within their remit.
R v Mason (1980)
What does this case demonstrate regarding juries?
Demonstrates: police vetting-1 form of vetting juries.
Facts: Police doing routine background checks on jurors were found to be working within their remit.
What case is an example of how vetting jurors by background check should not be done?
ABC Trial 1978
Facts: 2 journalists and a soldier charged with collecting secret int. Was discovered jury was vetted for their loyalty which was deemed to be unfair.
After this, the Attorney-General published guidelines on how background checks on jurors should be done.
What were the conditions set by the Attorney-General (AG) following the case of ABC Trial 1978 for how to vet a jury via background check?
1) Exceptional circumstances only like national security risks and terrorist cases.
2) Can only be carried out with AG’s permission.
What are the available methods of challenging a jury?
1) Challenge to the array-s5 Juries Act 1974; ‘Romford Jury 1993’
2) Cause e.g. a juror knows a witness or key figure in case
3) Prosecution right to stand by (put aside) jurors
What is a ‘challenge to the array’ regarding juries?
Challenging a whole jury on the grounds that it was selected in such a way to make it unfair.
Challenging a whole jury on the grounds that it was selected in such a way to make it unfair.
What is this a definition of?
‘Challenge to the array’
Under what act and section does the right exist to challenge the jury by means of a ‘challenge to the array’?
Example when this right was used successfully.
s5 Juries Act 1974
Romsford Jury 1993
s5 Juries Act 1974
What is the significance of this act and section to juries?
Gives the right to challenge a jury on via a ‘challenge to the array’.
An example when the rights conferred under s5 Juries Act 1974 were successfully utilised?
Romsford Jury 1993
‘Challenge to the array’ of a jury
What Courts are juries used in?
Crown Court where D has pleaded not guilty
What does a judge decide in a case where there is a jury?
The point/s of law
What does a jury decide in a case?
The facts of the case
Points of law directed by the judge
What is ‘directed acquittal’?
When judge decides there is insufficient prosecution evidence and the jury are directed to find D not guilty.
When judge decides there is insufficient prosecution evidence and the jury are directed to find D not guilty.
What is this a definition of?
Directed acquittal
What is the minimum standard of agreement between jurors?
Unanimous
Unless deliberations have lasted over 2 hours in which case a minimum of 9:1 guilty (10 rather than 12 accounting for jurors who take ill or die)
Some advantages of jury trial?
1) Public confidence
2) Jury equity (freedom to choose decision)-Ponting’s Case (1984)
3) Open system of justice
4) Secrecy of the jury room (can be disadvantage too)
5) Impartiality-random selection etc.
What case supports the advantage of ‘Jury Equity’ that the jury has freedom of decision?
Ponting’s Case (1984)
Facts: Civil servant disclosed info on the sinking of the Belgrano for ‘public interest’ and jury decided this was fair despite judge advising them the jury there was no defence.
Ponting’s Case (1984)
What is the significance of this case regarding juries?
Demonstrates ‘Jury Equity’-an advantage to jury system.
Facts: Civil servant disclosed info on the sinking of the Belgrano for ‘public interest’ and jury decided this was fair despite judge advising them the jury there was no defence.
Some potential disadvantages of jury trial?
1) Perverse decisions-R v Randle and Pottle (1991)
2) Secrecy-R v Mizra (2004)
3) Racial bias-Sander v UK (2000)
4) Media influence-R v Taylor and Taylor (1993)
5) Lack of understanding-legally
6) Jury tampering-R v Twomey (2009)
What case demonstrates a potential disadvantage of juries being that they can come to perverse decisions?
R v Randle and Pottle (1991)
Facts: Historic offence where D’s helped a spy escape prison and even wrote of their exploits only for the jury 25 years later decide D’s were not guilty despite overwhelming evidence.
R v Randle and Pottle (1991)
What is the significance of this case regarding juries?
Demonstrates: a potential disadvantage to juries as they can come to perverse decisions.
Facts: Historic offence where D’s helped a spy escape prison and even wrote of their exploits only for the jury 25 years later decide D’s were not guilty despite overwhelming evidence.
What case demonstrates that the secrecy that juries are entitled to can be a disadvantage to jury trial?
R v Mizra (2004)
Facts: Jury developed ‘theory’ about D regarding D’s interpreter and based decision on this theory. Jury member alerted D team but jury could not be investigated.
R v Mizra (2004)
What does this case demonstrate regarding juries?
Demonstrates: that the juries entitlement to secrecy can be a potential disadvantage to juries.
Facts: Jury developed ‘theory’ about D regarding D’s interpreter and based decision on this theory. Jury member alerted D team but jury could not be investigated.
Contrasting case to R v Mizra (2004) in that it provides an exception to the rule that there is secrecy for juries.
R v Young (1995) Provides exception to the rule that of secrecy of the jury.
Facts: Jury members met in hotel room during a multi-day case and decided to go of the evidence provided by a Ouija board do convict a D. Was allowed to be investigated as this happened out of Court hours.
R v Young (1995)
What is this case an example of regarding juries?
Example of: contrasting case with R v Mizra (2004) in that the jury was questioned on its decision making.
Facts: Jury members met in hotel room during a multi-day case and decided to go of the evidence provided by a Ouija board do convict a D. Was allowed to be investigated as this happened out of Court hours.
What case shows that there is a risk of racist bias in juries therefore constituting a disadvantage to jury trial.
Sander v UK (2000)
Facts: Juror admitted to making racist remarks towards the D amongst jury.
Sander v UK (2000)
What does this case demonstrate regarding jury trial?
Demonstrates: a potential for racist bias in juries.
Facts: Juror admitted to making racist remarks towards the D amongst jury.
What case shows that there can be potential for media influence over juries?
R v Taylor and Taylor (1993)
Facts: Case of 2 sisters charged with murder, press released a video that a false impression of the facts-conviction was quashed.
R v Taylor and Taylor (1993)
What does this case demonstrate regarding jury trial?
Demonstrates: a potential disadvantage to jury trial in the form of ‘media influence’ over a jury.
Facts: Case of 2 sisters charged with murder, press released a video that a false impression of the facts-conviction was quashed.
What case was the first to be without a jury due to powers granted under a certain Act?
What was the Act?
R v Twomey (2009)
s44 CJA 2003
Facts: Attempted tampering of the jury meant that powers granted under the above named Act were utilised-no jury was not used.
R v Twomey (2009)
What is the significance of this case regarding jury trial?
First case to not use a jury.
Facts: Attempted tampering of the jury meant that powers granted under the above named Act were utilised-no jury was not used.
The case of R v Twomey (2009) used what Act to implement a no jury trial?
s44 CJA 2003
s44 CJA 2003
What does this statute provide for regarding jury trials?
That there does no have to be a jury if there has been an attempt to tamper the jury previously.
What case uses the provisions under s44 CJA 2003 to implement a no jury trial?
R v Twomey (2009)
First case not to have a jury on these grounds.
Comparisons and distinctions between lay Magistrates and Juries.
1) Juries can represent a broader section of society-as there are more people and selected at random
2) Magistrates are a cheap alternative to judges and are still more ‘qualled’/ trained than a typical juror.
What case shows that having police on a jury legally, can still be regarded an unfair trial in breach of Article 6 ECHR-Right to a fair trial?
Hanif v UK (2012)
Facts: Police officer notified court he knew a key witness but was allowed to remain as a jury member.
