5- Juries

Question 1

Which 2 cases firmly established the independence of the jury?

Answer 1

1. Bushell’s case (1670) established that judge cannot challenge jurors decision:
   
   • Several jurors refused to convict Quaker activists of unlawful assembly.
   • Trial judge would not accept their verdict and ordered the jurors to resume their deliberations without food or drink
   • When jurors persisted in their refusal to convict court fined them and imprisoned them until the fines were paid
   • On appeal, Court of Common Pleas ordered a release of the jurors, holding that jurors could not be punished for their verdict.
2. More modern example R v Mckenna (1960):
   
   • Judge at trial threatened the jury if they did not return the verdict within 10 minutes they would be locked up all night
   • Jury then returned a verdict of guilty, but D’s conviction was quashed on appeal bc of interference of judge.

Question 2

Give 2 facts about jury

Answer 2

1. Jury trials account for only 2% of criminal trials- 94% cases dealt in MC and about 2/3 D’s plead guilty
2. Jury in CC has 12 members

Question 3

What does a person need to qualify for jury service?

Answer 3

Set out in Juries Act 1974, person needs to be:

1. Aged 18-75 inclusive
2. Registered as an elector
3. Resident in the UK, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man for at least 5 years

Question 4

Why may a person be unable to sit as a juror?

Answer 4

1. Disqualified permanently or for 10 years
2. Mentally disordered
3. Excusal or discretionary excusal

Question 5

Who can be permanently disqualified from jury service?

Answer 5

1. Imprisoned for life
2. Imprisonment or detention for public protection
3. Serving an extended sentence
4. Serving a term of imprisonment of 5+ years

Question 6

Who can be disqualified from jury service for 10 years?

Answer 6

Those who at any time in the last 10 years have:

1. Served a sentence of imprisonment
2. Had a suspended sentence passed on them
3. Had a community order
4. Are on bail

If a disqualified person turns up for jury service can be fined up to 5,000

Question 7

Who is considered mentally disordered and therefore not qualified for jury service?

Answer 7

Described in the CJA 2003 as:

1. A person who suffers/has suffered from mental illness, psychopathic disorder, mental handicap or severe mental handicap and bc of that condition is:
   
   • resident in a hospital or similar institution or
   • regularly attends a treatment
2. A person under guardianship under s7 of the Mental Health Act 1983
3. A person who, under s7 of the Mental Health Act 1983 has been determined to be incapable of managing their property and affairs.

Question 8

Who may be excused from jury service?

Answer 8

Before 2004 people in certain occupations such as doctors and pharmacists had a right to be excused from jury service

CJA 2003 abolished this category

They can still apply for a discretionary excusal

Question 9

How do excusals work for members of the forces?

Answer 9

Full-time serving members of the forces will be excused from jury service if their commander officer approves

Question 10

How do discretionary excusals work?

Answer 10

Anyone who has problems which make it difficult to attend may be excused

Court will accept but only if there is a good excuse (being too ill, suffering from a disability that unables the person to attend or being a mother with a small baby, business appointments that cannot be undertaken by anyone else, examinations or holidays)

In this situation court will usually defer jury service to a more convenient date instead of excusing the person completely
- This prevents too many excusals

If a person isn’t excused they must attend or may be fined up to 1,000

Question 11

Can judges, lawyers and police officers be part of the jury?

Answer 11

Until 2003 they were inelegible but this was abolished by the CJA 2003

Many people feel this could lead to bias or influencing the rest of the jury.

Question 12

In which 2 cases was the issue of judges and others biasing the rest of the jury considered?

Answer 12

1. R v Abdroikof, R v Green and R v Williamson (2007):
   
   • HoL considered appeals where a police officer had been members of the jury
   • They held that the person being a police officer didn’t make the trial unfair
   • However 3/5 judges held that if the police officer had worked in the same station as a police officer giving evidence for the prosecution in the trial, there was a risk of bias.
2. Hanif v United Kingdom (2012):
   
   • A police officer was selected to be a juror, he alerted the court that he knew one of the prosecution police witnesses.
   • His evidence was crucial for the case but the judge ruled that it did not matter and the case continued.
   • There was a conviction and the case was appealed by D.
   • CofA upheld the conviction but the European Court of Human Rights ruled that having a police officer on the jury was a breach of s6 of the European Convention of Human Rights- right to a fair trial

Question 13

What happened in 2004 in relation to the changes made in the law in 2003 in the CJA?

Answer 13

A judge was summoned to attend as a juror and Lord Chief Justice Lord Woolf issued some observations

Question 14

What observations did Lord Woolf issue in relation to a judge attending as a juror?

Answer 14

1. A judge serves as a juror as part of his duty as citizen
2. Excusal only granted in extreme circumstances
3. Discretionary excusals only when judge has judicial commitments
4. If judge knows presiding judge or other persons in the case, they should inform a member of the court
5. Judges should be discrete when disclosing their occupation to other members of the jury
6. Judges must follow directions given to jury and not try to connect guidance as this is outside their role as jurors

Question 15

How is a jury selected?

Answer 15

1. Central computer selects nemes at random
2. Summons for jury service sent out
3. Vetting- police checks and juror background
4. Selection at court
5. Challenging- to the array, for cause and prosecution right

Question 16

What does the first step towards selecting a jury involve?

Answer 16

Jurors to try cases that will be heard in each 2-week period are selected from the electoral registers, for the area which the court covers

Necessary to summon + than 12 jurors bc courts usually have more than 1 room and it will not be known how many will be disqualified

Question 17

What happens after the summons for jury service are sent out?

Answer 17

Those who can’t attend must notify the court

All others are expected to attend for 2 weeks unless the case goes on for longer- they will have to stay until trial is completed

Question 18

What does vetting involve in the selection of a jury?

Answer 18

Once list of potential jurors is known, prosecution and defence have the right to see it and might ask for it to be vetted (checked for suitability)

Question 19

What is one type of vetting?

Answer 19

1. Police checks: Made on possible jurors to eliminate the disqualified.
   
   • In R v Crown Court at Sheffield, ex parte Brownlow (1980) D was a police officer and the defence sought permission to vet the jury panel for convictions. Judge gave permission but CofA held that vetting was unconstitutional and an invasion of privacy

• In R v Mason (1980), however, it was revealed that unauthorised vetting of criminal records had been allowed and CofA approved of this type of vetting bc it considered that the police were only doing their job by preventing a crime (a disqualified person from being juror)

Question 20

What is another type of vetting?

Answer 20

2. Juror’s background: wider check on juror’s background and political affiliations
   
   • It was brought to light by the ‘ABC trial’ in 1978 where 2 journalists and a soldier were charged with collecting secret info. It was discovered that the jury had been vetted for their loyalty. Trial was stopped and a new one ordered.
   • Following this the attorney General published guidelines on when political vetting of jurors should take place:
     1) in exceptional cases involving national security and terrorist cases and
     2) vetting can only be carried out if Attorney-General gives permission

Question 21

What happens after the vetting?

Answer 21

Jurors usually divided into groups of 5 and allocated to a court

At the start of a trial the court clerk will select 12 out of the 15 at random.

Question 22

What happens once the clerk selects a jury?

Answer 22

They go into the jury box to be sworn as jurors.

Before they are sworn in, defence and prosecution have the right to challenge one or more jurors.

Question 23

How can jurors be challenged?

Answer 23

1. To the array
2. For cause
3. Prosecution right to stand by jurors

Question 24

How can jurors be challenged to the array?

Answer 24

A challenge to the whole jury on the basis that it has been chosen in an unrepresentative way
- less likely now that they are chosen by a computer

This challenge was used in R v Fraser (1987) where D was from an ethnic minority but jury was all white. Judge agreed to summon another jury but in R v Ford (1989) it was held that if the panel was selected randomly it could not be challenged simply bc it was not multi-racial

Question 25

How can jurors be challenged for cause?

Answer 25

Challenging the right of an individual to sit in the jury it must point out a valid reason for this ex: is disqualified or related to defendant

Question 26

How can jurors be challenged by the prosecution right to stand by jurors?

Answer 26

Right only prosecution can exercise Allows juror who has been stood by to be put to the end of the list of potential jurors- won't be used unless not enough jurors Prosecution doesn't have to give a reason but this power doesn't have to be used sparingly

Question 27

How are the functions in a trial split?

Answer 27

Judge decides points of law | Jury decides the facts

Question 28

What is a directed acquittal?

Answer 28

Where a judge decides at the end of the prosecution case that there is insufficient prosecution evidence to allow a case to continue. The jury is directed to find D not guilty.

Question 29

What happens at the end of a trial?

Answer 29

Judge will sum up the case and direct the jury on any law involved. Jury will then retire to a private room to make a decision on the guilt or innocence of D Jury must try to come to a unanimous verdict and judge must accept it even if they don't agree with it. Jury does not have to give a reason for the verdict- principle that goes back to Bushell's Case (1670)

Question 30

What happens after 2 hours of the jury going to the private room?

Answer 30

If jurors have not reached a unanimous verdict, judge can call it back to courtroom and announce that they will now accept a majority verdict- allowed since 1967 Where there is a full jury of 12, verdict can be 10:2 or 11:1 either guilty or not guilty. If there is not a full jury (maybe bc a juror has fallen ill or died) then only one can disagree the verdict: - 11 jurors: 10:1 - 10 jurors: 9:1 - If there are only 9 jurors the verdict must be unanimous (can't go below 9 jurors)

Question 31

Why were majority verdicts introduced?

Answer 31

Bc of fear that a juror might be bribed or intimidated by associates of D into voting for a not guilty verdict Also thought that majority verdicts would result in more convictions

Question 32

Who has to announce a majority verdict?

Answer 32

Foreman of the jury in open court, to ensure jury has come to a legal majority, About 20% convictions by juries/year are by maj verdicts

Question 33

Do jurors have to keep the info secret?

Answer 33

Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 makes it an offence to obtain, disclose or solicit statements made, opinions, votes of members of the jury during decision making Only allowed to disclose if it's in the interest of justice

Question 34

What are the advantages of jury trial?

Answer 34

1. Public confidence: - Jury 1 of fundamentals of a democratic society- right to be tried by one's peers is a form of liberty against the state - Tradition of jury trial is old and people have confidence in its impartiality and fairness (ex: no withdrawal of jury trial in minor cases) 2. Jury Equity: - Jurors are not legal experts and don't have to give reasons for their decisions - Can decide cases on the idea of fairness - In Ponting's Case (1984) Jury found a civil servant not guilty under an Act even though the judge said he had no defence. D claimed his actions had been in the public interest. - Recent example: A mother who had pleaded guilty for assisting her daughter's suicide but was found not guilty by the jury of attempted murder. Daughter had injected herself with an overdose of morphine- she had been ill for 17 years. 3. Open system of justice: - Using a jury makes a legal system more open, since the public is involved and the law is made clearer. 4. Secrecy in the jury system: - Jury free from pressure and protected from outside influences - People may be less willing to serve as jurors if they knew their decision would be made public 5. Jury impartiality: - Random selection should lead to impartiality since no one is connected to anyone in the case. - No one individual is responsible for the decision - Jurors are not case hardened as they only sit for 2 weeks

Question 35

What are the disadvantages of jury trial?

Answer 35

1. Perverse decisions: - In some cases jury has refused to convict. - In R v Randle and Pottle (1991) Ds found not guilty even though they had helped a spy escape from prison. This was possibly a protest over the time-lapse between the offence and the prosecution (25 years) - In R v Kronlid and others (1996) Ds admitted causing 1.5 million damage to a plane but said they did it to prevent the plane being used to attack innocent people in East Timor. Found not guilty 2. Secrecy: - As no reasons are given for the decision there is no way of knowing whether jurors understood the case. - In R v Mirza (2004) D needed an interpreter during the trial, jury convicted him on a majority against judge's directions. There had been a theory that the use of an interpreter was a ploy - In R v Connor and Rollock (2004) jury had convicted both Ds even though it was known that only one of them had done it. Jury considered convicting both to teach them a lesson. 3. Racial bias: - Jurors may be prejudiced - In Sander v UK (2000) judge allowed a trial with the = jury to continue after a juror admitted to making racial jokes. It was held that this risked racial bias and was a breach of the right to a fair trial under s6 of the Human Rights. 4. Media influence: - Media coverage may influence jurors, particularly in high profile cases - In R v West (1996) D challenged her conviction due to the media coverage but it was upheld. - In R v Taylor and Taylor (1993) guilty convictions quashed bc photos in newspapers could have influenced verdict 5. Lack of understanding - In a nº of simulated trials, 31 % jurors had understood the directions of a judge 6. Fraud trials: - Can be long and complicated - Jury can serve for months- strain on them - Expensive for prosecution and Ds 7. High acquittal rates: - Juries often criticised bc they acquit too many Ds - About 60% of those who plead not guilty are acquitted- this includes cases where the judge has ordered an acquittal (+ than 50%)

Question 36

What are the 2 exceptions where the court can ask the jury for the reasons behind the verdict?

Answer 36

1. Where jurors haven't decided the verdict according to the evidence - In R v Young (Stephen) (1995) jury stayed in a hotel overnight and several jurors used a ouija board to ask the victims who had killed them. CofA quashed the conviction. 2. Where external material (not evidence) has been introduced into the jury room - In R v Karakaya (2005) one of the jurors printed info about the case and brought it to the jury room. D was found guilty and his conviction was quashed.

Question 37

How can Magistrates and juries be compared in relation to their representation of society?

Answer 37

Both involve members of the community in making decisions and there is a gender balance. However, lay magistrates often perceived as middle-aged, middle-class whilst jurors come from different backgrounds and ages

Question 38

How can Magistrates and juries be compared in relation to their local knowledge?

Answer 38

Both are from a local community and have local knowledge from the area However, most magistrates come from middle classes, difficult for them to identify certain social problems

Question 39

How can Magistrates and juries be compared in relation to the cost?

Answer 39

Cost of unpaid magistrates is cheap and a trial at the MC is cheaper than one at a CC In addition, having a jury probably adds to the length and cost of cases, including costs of a judge

Question 40

How can Magistrates and juries be compared in relation to their training?

Answer 40

Lay magistrates receive training, majority of their decisions have to do with common sense. Jurors don't have training and often have to consider complicated directions from the judge. Seems contradictory

Question 41

What are some alternatives to jury trial?

Answer 41

1. Trial by a single judge - method of trial in most civil cases- regarded as faster and more predictable - Arguments against: judges become case-hardened and form an elite group that would have little understanding of social problems - Arguments for: judges are trained 2. Panel of judges - In some countries a panel of 3-5 judges hear the case - Arguments against: Leaves decision making to elite, case-hardened judges, no sufficient judges and very costly - Arguments for: Allows a balance of views 3. A judge plus lay assessors - Judge + 2 lay people would make the decision - Arguments for: legal expertise from judge + lay participation by ordinary people 4. A mini-jury - smaller nº of jurors- in many countries there are 9 (Spain) - for less serious offences a panel of 6 could be used

Question 42

What are the cases on juries?

Answer 42

1. Bushell's case (1670)- jury independence 2. R v McKenna (1960)- jury independence 3. R v Abdroikof, R v Green and R v Williamson (2007)- police officers as jurors 4. Hanif v UK (2012)- police officers as jurors 5. R v Crown Court at Sheffield, ex parte Brownlow (1980)- vetting/police checks 6. R v Mason (1980)- vetting/police checks 7. ABC trial (1978)- vetting/juror's background 8. R v Fraser (1987)- Challenging to the array 9. R v Ford (1989)- Challenging to the array 10. Ponting's Case (1984)- Jury equity/adv of juries 11. R v Randle and Pottle (1991)- perverse decisions/disadv of juries 12. R v Kronlid and others (1996)- perverse decisions/disadv of juries 13. R v Mirza (2004)- Secrecy/disadv of juries 14. R v Connor and Rollock (2004)- Secrecy/disadv of juries 15. Sander v UK (2000)- racial bias/disadv of juries 16. R v West (1996)- media influence/disadv of juries 17. R v Taylor and Taylor (1993)- media influence/disadv of juries 18. R v Young (Stephen) (1995)- exceptions to secrecy rule 1 19. R v Karakaya (2005)- exceptions to secrecy rule 2