Composition of Juries: Scotland and England Flashcards
What is the age limit of potential jurors in English criminal trials?
Per s.1(1)(a) of the Juries Act 1974 every person aged between 18 and 76 is able to serve on a jury in England
What else does s.1(1)(a) of the Juries Act state?
That to serve on a jury that person must be either registered as a parliamentary or local government elector
How long must a potential juror in England have been resident in the UK?
Per s.1(1)(b) Must be resident for a period of 5 years since attaining the age of 13
Other than the conditions stipulated in s.1(1)(a) and (b) of the Juries Act, what other condition must be fulfilled by potential jurors in England?
s.1(1)(d) of the Act states that persons must not be disqualified from Jury service
In Scotland what is the age range prescribed as for those eligible for jury duty?
Per s.1(1)(b) of the Law Reform (MP) (S) Act 1980 persons aged no less than eighteen may sit on a jury
- there is no max age cap
In Scotland if it comes to light that a person sitting on the jury is ineligible or disqualified will the verdict in the trial be valid?
s.1(4) of the LR(MP)(S)Act 1980
A person who is ineligible or disqualified from sitting on a jury shall not render the verdict invalid in itself
Other than s.1(1)(b) of the LR(MP)(S)Act 1980 what other conditions must be met for a person to be eligible for jury duty in Scotland?
s. 1(1)(a) that person must be registered as a parliamentary or local government elector
s. 1(1)(c) that person must have been ordinarily resident in the UK for a period of 5 years since attaining the age of 13
s. 1(1)(d) that person must not be among those persons listed in PART 1 of SCHEDULE 1 of this act, that being persons who are ineligible for jury service; that person must also not be among those listed in part 2 of Schedule 1, those who are disqualified
R v Baybasin 2014
FACTS
- Applicants charges were divided up into six different indictments
- The trial of B, MCM and M began on May 18th 2011
- In this case the prosecution invited the judge to proceed to empanelling the jury through ballot by number which was a common procedure in this court for cases expected to last more than 2 weeks
- prosecution withdrew this request but the judge proceeded to do so anyway
- Jurors were told they would be transported to the court by transport from a city centre pick up point, and that when they were not present in court they would remain in the jury room
APPEAL
- It was submitted that the courts practice of balloting by number was unlawful and moreover the judge had not given proper direction as to the arrangements in place for jurors during the trial
HELD
- Appeals dismissed
- The usual procedure for empanelling jury was ballot by calling out jurors name in open court in presence of defendant however ballot by number was approved in cases where jury nobbling was anticipated
- Whilst ballot by number was unique it could not be said to have any effect on fairness of the trial
- Jurors were told the practice was normal and therefore no risk of adverse inferences being drawn, this applied to the special transport also
R v Abdroikov 2007
FACT
- Three separate cases where members of the jury contained those who worked for the state
- First case police officer who may come into contact with other officer witnesses
- Second case a police officer who worked in the same borough as officer witnesses but did not know each other
- Third case a member of the CPS was present on the jury who was objected to remained on the jury
APPEAL
- Appeal raised on the grounds that although those in the administration of justice were now allowed to sit on a jury those working for the agency bringing prosecution against the defendants amounted to a breach of their right under Art.6 of the ECHR
HELD
- First case, appeal of defendant dismissed as there was no conflict between evidence of the police and evidence of the defendant, and since there was no link between the trial court and the station where the officer on the jury served and there was no relationship between the witness or the officer on the jury and to the fair minded observer the jury was not bias
- Second case, appeal allowed where officer was from same borgough as police witnesses as it was established that the juror would likely favour the evidence of his “brother officer” and there was a real possibility of unfairness.
- third case, appeal allowed as it was held a full time salaried worker of the prosecution could not result in justice being done as the tribunal trying the defendant was not impartial
Hanif and Khan v UK 2012
FACTS
- Complainants complained that presence of a police officer (AT) on jury deprived them of right to a fair trial
- The juror knew one of the witnesses another officer
- The judge refused an application to withdraw the juror and the complainant was convicted
- After the trial it was discovered the juror had been active on recent drug operations and their criminal trials in the area and therefore the applicants claimed bias
HELD
- Breach of Art.6
- First applicant’s case contained a serious conflict between officer witness and defendant and that normal safeguards by a judge were not sufficient as the juror would likely favour the evidence of the witness
- It was not for the court to determine the strength of the first applicant’s evidence but for the jury who were to remain impartial
Armstrong v UK 2015
FACTS
- A retired police officer and a serving police officer were both present on a jury
- The serving officer made the judge aware that he actually knew an officer present in court who was actually head of the investigation
- the prosecution stated he would not be called as a witness
- Questions were prepared for the serving officer at request of the defence and they were happy with the repsonses and thus the juror remained serving on the trial
- the applicant was convicted
APPEAL
- Appeal on the grounds that presence of the two jurors of a police background breached his right to a fair trial
HELD by the ECtHR
- Need to preserve fair trial does on occasion require dismissal of some jurors but in some cases it is sufficient for other safeguards to be used
- Not always case that because a juror knows a witness that they will be prejudiced against the defendant
- Each case must determine whether the familiarity between the juror and witness is of such a nature to indicate lack of impartiality
- Where there is conflict of police evidence, jury directions and judicial warnings are insufficient to guard against risk that juror may favour evidence of the police
- Safeguards in this case were sufficient to insure impartiality of jury
R v Smith (Lance Percival) 2003
FACTS
- Defendant was black and the victim was white
- Evidence led which showed white man behaved aggressively toward the defendant
- Defendant had concerns that the jury was made of predominantly of white persons
APPEAL
- Defendant appealed on the grounds that s.1 of the Juries Act was incompatible with Art.6 and that his conviction was unsafe because he was tried by an all white jury, in a community where the defendant alleges he has experienced racial harassment
HELD
- Appeal refused
- Responsibility of summoning jurors was of the Lord Chancellor and not the judge, who had no power to discharge a jury made up from persons of a particular section of the community
- There was no risk that jury had failed to approach evidence fairly, nor was it the case the trial could have only been fair if there was a sufficient number of the defendant’s race present on the jury.
Brown v HM Advocate 2006
FACTS
- Panel available for selection of a jury was of 15 women and 7 men reduced from an equal panel of 60
- Accused submitted to the sheriff to desert the diet pro loco et tempore as the list was unrepresentative and could lead to the balloting of a jury which had a disproportionate number of women to men
- Sheriff refused
APPEAL
- On the grounds Art.6 had been breached due to selection and composition of jury
HELD
- The Sheriff should have asked the question as to whether the panel was too small, or at what point an imbalance between male and female jurors would have been too great for there to be a proper ballot
- The selection of 15 jurors from 22 lacked the appearance of fairness and the ballot was therefore completely unsatisfactory
- Appeal granted
