1A.2.3 Juries

Question 1

Qualifications

Answer 1

The** Juries Act 1974** sets out the qualifications for jurors. To qualify for jury service, a person must be:

• Between age 18 and 75.
• On the electoral roll
• Be a UK resident for at least 5 years

In addition, the person must not be a:
- A person detained or resident in a hospital under a Mental Health Order
- Disqualified from jury service

Question 2

Disqualification

Answer 2

A disqualification is where someone is barred from serving on a jury for a period of 10 years or for life.

Question 3

Reasons for a permanent disqualification

Answer 3

• Life imprisonment
• Served prison term for longer than 5 years

Question 4

Reasons for a temporary (10 year long) disqualification

Answer 4

• Been in prison
• Suspended sentence
• Community order
• On bail

Question 5

What happens if a disqualified person fails to disclose that fact and turns up for jury service?

Answer 5

They may be fined up to £5000.

Question 6

Can people with mental disorders sit on a jury?

Answer 6

Those who suffer from a mental illness and are a resident of a hospital or regularly attend to receive treatment are unable to sit on a jury.

Question 7

Who can be excused from sitting on a jury?

Answer 7

• Full time members of the armed forces may have the right to be excused.

Question 8

Can Judges, Lawyers and Police sit on a jury?

Answer 8

Previously, judges, lawyers and police were ineligible to be jurors, however this was changed by the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

This has the potential to influence the rest of the jury – jurors without legal knowledge might think a police officer or lawyer’s view is more important than theirs. This may also lead to bias. For example, a CPS lawyer would be biased in favour of their colleagues.

Question 9

Selection of jurors

Answer 9

At each Crown Court there is an official who is responsible for summoning enough jurors to try the cases that will be heard in each two-week period.

This official will arrange for names to be selected at random from the electoral registers for the areas the court covers. This is done through computer selection at a central office.

It is necessary to summon more than 12 jurors as most courts have more than one courtroom, and it will not be known how many of those summoned are disqualified or will be excused.

Those summoned must notify the court if there is any reason why they should not or cannot attend.

All others are expected to attend for two weeks’ jury service – they will have to stay until the trial is completed if it takes longer than two weeks.

Where it is known that a trial may be exceptionally long, such as a complicated fraud trial, potential jurors are asked if they will be able to serve for such a long period.

Question 10

Vetting

Answer 10

Once the list of potential jurors is known, both the prosecution and the defence have the right to see that list. In some cases, it may be decided that this pool of potential jurors should be ‘vetted’ and checked for suitability.

Question 11

Two types of vetting

Answer 11

• Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS)
• Authorised jury checks

Question 12

Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS)

Answer 12

The Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) will check criminal records to see if they are disqualified from sitting on a jury.

Permission to carry out a DBS check is given by a court.

Question 13

Authorised jury checks

Answer 13

This is where a wider check is authorised into a juror’s background and political affiliations.

Following the ABC trial, the Attorney-General published guidelines in 1980 on when political vetting of jurors should take place. They state that:
- Vetting should only be used in exceptional cases involving national security, where part for the evidence is likely to be given in secret such as in terrorism cases.
- Vetting can only be carried out with the Attorney-General’s express permission.

Question 14

When were wider authorised jury checks brought to light?

Answer 14

The ‘ABC trial’ in 1978, where two journalists and a soldier were charged with collecting secret information. It was discovered that the jury had been vetted for their loyalty. The trial was stopped and a new trial ordered before a fresh jury

Question 15

Brownlow (1980)

Answer 15

D was a police officer who sought permission to vet the jury panel for convictions. Judge gave permission but the Court of Appeal ruled that it was “unconstitutional”.

Question 16

R v Mason (1980)

Answer 16

The Chief Constable of Northamptonshire had been allowing widespread, unauthorised vetting of criminal records. The court of appeals agreed with this. In direct contrast of the other case (Brownlow (1980)).

Question 17

Challenging juries

Answer 17

Once the court clerk has selected the panel of 12 jurors, these jurors come into the jury box to be sworn in as jurors. At this point, before the jury is sworn in, both the prosecution and the defence have certain rights to challenge one or more of the jurors.

Question 18

Three challenges that can be made to juries

Answer 18

• To the array
• For cause
• The prosecution right to stand by

Question 19

Challenge to the array

Answer 19

This is a challenge to the whole jury on the basis that it has been chosen in an unrepresentative or biased way.

This challenge was used successfully against the ‘Romford’ jury at the old Bailey in 1993 when, out of a panel of 12 jurors, 9 came from Romford, with two of them living in the same street.

Question 20

[Challenge to the array]

R v Fraser (1987)

Answer 20

Challenge to the array was used as the D was of a BAME background, but all the jurors were white. The judge in that case agreed to find another jury.

Question 21

[Challenge to the array]

R v Ford (1989)

Answer 21

Held that if the jury was chosen in a random matter then it could not be challenged simply because it was not multiracial.

Question 22

Challenge for cause

Answer 22

This involves challenging the right of an individual juror to sit on the jury. To be successful, the challenge must point out a valid reason why that juror should not serve on the jury, such as being disqualified or knowing/being related to a witness or defendant.

If such people are not removed from the jury, there is a risk that any subsequent conviction could be quashed.

Question 23

Role of jurors in criminal cases

Answer 23

Juries are used in the Crown Court where they decide whether the D is guilty or not guilty.

A jury in the Crown Court has 12 members.

Question 24

What percentage of criminal trials are heard by a jury?

Answer 24

Less than 1% of all criminal trials – about 20,000 cases per year.

Question 25

R v McKenna (1960)

Answer 25

The judge threatened to jail jurors if they didn’t hurry up with the verdict. The just gave verdicts of guilty but this was quashed by an appeal because the judge rushed them.

Question 26

Bushell’s case (1670)

Answer 26

Jurors were imprisoned for refusing to find the defendant guilty. This gave the legal principle that juries should give verdicts using conscience, not force.

Question 27

Split function

Answer 27

A trial is presided over by a judge and the functions are split between the judge and jury:
- The judge decides points of law
- The jury decides points of facts

The judge must accept the jury’s verdict, even if they do not agree with it. The long-established principle goes back to Bushell’s Case (1670). The jury does not give any reasons for their decisions.

Question 28

How representative are juries?

Answer 28

• Higher income and more professional people tend to be called. This leads to elderly, retired, young, unemployed or disabled people to be under represented.
• Not everyone is on the electoral roll which means it favours certain groups of people.

Question 29

Majority verdicts

Answer 29

If, after two hours, the jury still has not reached a verdict, the judge can call it back into the courtroom and direct that they can now accept a majority verdict.
Majority verdicts have now been allowed since 1967.

The verdict can either be 10:2 or 11:1 for guilty/not guilty.

If the jury has fallen below 12 for any reason (e.g. illness or death of a jury), then only one juror may disagree. – Meaning they could only accept a 10:1 majority.

Question 30

Why were majority verdicts introduced?

Answer 30

Majority verdicts were introduced due to fears over jury nobbling. When a jury had to be unanimous, only one juror had to be bribed to cause a “stalemate”, in which the jury was unable to reach a decision.

It was also thought that the majority verdict would decrease the high acquittal rates and result in more convictions.

Question 31

Direct acquittal

Answer 31

Where a judge decides there is insufficient evidence to allow the case to continue, the jury will be directed to find the defendant not guilty.

Question 32

Secrecy of the jury room

Answer 32

Once they retire to consider their verdict they cannot have contact will anyone other than the judge or court officials.

After the case, they cannot share any details of their deliberations.

If they do, it is a criminal offence under the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015.

This includes:
- Any opinions expressed.
- Votes cast by members of the jury.

When a disclosure is allowed:
- Situations where it is in the interest of justice, such as reporting juror misconduct or possible jury nobbling.

Question 33

Vicky Pryce trial

Answer 33

This trial is an example of where a jury didn’t know what was happening.

It was unusual that a jury asked 10 questions to the judge. These were basic questions that they had already been told the answer to.

Question 34

Summary of jury selection process

Answer 34

Question 35

Why can’t deaf people sit on a jury?

Answer 35

Deaf people cannot sit as jurors if they require an interpreter. This is because the law does not allow a 13th person (interpreter) to be present in the jury.