Criminal Courts and Lay People - Advantages and disadvantages of using juries in criminal cases Flashcards
Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of using juries in criminal cases (12 marks)
Juries have been used for hundreds of years. The right to a trial by peers is referenced in the Magna Carta and despite some problems with juries, they are a much better option than the alternatives and have been in place over 800 years with few problems.
ADVANTAGES:
Why is the element of public participation an advantage of juries
This is an advantage because justice needs to be seen to be done as well as be done. As juries are chosen at random, they represent society and contain a range of ages, races, backgrounds etc.. This is a positive because it means they can relate to the defendant and their verdict is more likely to be accepted by the D for this reason - as juries allow ordinary people to participate in the justice system, their verdicts are seen to be those of society rather than the judicial system which people cannot necessarily relate to.
Summary:
- Juries allow ordinary people to participate in the justice system and so verdicts are seen to be those of society rather than the judicial system.
- The verdict is more likely to be acceptable because the panel should include members of the defendant’s own class and race.
There is an impression that justice has not only been done but is seen to be done as seen in the Magna Carta, where the right to a trial by peers is referenced
Explain the various ways juries are fair and why it is an advantage
This is good because juries may be able to give a fairer less prosecution minded than judges or magistrates, considering the mix of social backgrounds. They offer protection against harsh or unjust laws since they will often come to a verdict that is FAIR rather than LEGALLY CORRECT.
This has been seen in numerous jury equity cases such as R v Owen where the jury found the defendant not guilty of attempted murder despite the evidence as they sympathised with his plight. A similar thing happened in R v Ponting where a jury found the defendant not guilty of breaking the Official Secrets Act as they felt the public had a right to know the government had lied to them. The right for juries to decide on their conscience has been upheld since Bushells case in 1970. The jury can also give fairer decisions as it is not ‘case hardened’ in the way that some judges or even magistrates may be. Jurors have not become jaded on cynical about defence arguments because for most of them, this is the first trial they have ever seen.
Summary:Juries may be less prosecution minded than judges or magistrates, considering the mix of social backgrounds.
Juries offer protection against harsh or unjust laws since they will often come to a verdict that is FAIR rather than LEGALLY CORRECT.
(R v Owen (1992), R v Kronlid & Others (1996))
What are the advantages of 12 jurors and the fact the discussions within the jury room are secret, and provide the legislation which states this
It is argued that the 12 opinions of the jury are safer than one single judge. Also, due to Sec 8 Contempt of Court Act 1981 and the new offences introduced by Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, discussions within the jury room are secret and thus the jury is protected from outside influence and pressure.
Provide evidence from people who describe jurors as an advantage (quotes)
It is an ancient institution and our whole trial system is founded upon it. Professor Blackstone said “it is the bulwark of our liberties”
and Lord Devlin described it as “the lamp that shows that freedom lives”
DISADVANTAGES:
On the other hand, the secrecy of the jury can be seen as a disadvantage. Provide evidence of this and develop this point
On the other hand, the secrecy of the jury can be seen as a disadvantage.
McCabe and Purves, in ‘‘The Shadow Jury at Work’’ reported that a jury can be dominated by two or three strong-minded individuals, or be persuaded by a forceful foreperson when locked in the jury room, This is even more likely to happen since 2003 now that lawyers, police officers and judges are no longer excused from jury service. Juries also do not given reasons for their decisions unlike magistrates, and this makes it harder for defendants to appeal. We do not know what they are getting up to in the jury room.
The Contempt of Court Act 1981 and the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 prevent jurors from discussing the case of their reasoning and in extreme cases juries may be tossing a coin or using a Ouija board, as in R v Young, instead of basing their verdict on what they have seen and heard in court.
Need to aks aboht certain cases i think
How can public participation can also be a disadvantage- explain how
As jurors are ordinary members of the public, they may not understand the rules. Sometimes, curiosity gets the better of them and in cases such as R v Karakaya, R v Dallas and R v Deane, jurors went rogue and did their own research which can cause costly trials to collapse. An exception to this was in R v Karakaya (2005) where it was discovered that a juror had conducted internet searches at home and brought the notes into the jury room.
More recent cases such as Dallas (2012) and Deane (2016) show that jurors can go rogue and do their own research which can cause costly trials to collapse.
There may also be cases where jurors simply do not understand the case due to lack of intelligence and this was seen in R v Pryce where the trial had to be restarted with a fresh jury when it was clear that most of the jury had no idea what was going on. (R v Pryce (2013) The trial collapsed in the case of Vicky Pryce, the ex wife of MP Chris Huhne, when the judge realised the jury was struggling to understand the basics when they asked ten questions which revealed the “fundamental deficits” in understanding. This led to a lengthy and expensive retrial.)
Jurors might also be too easily convinced by the manner and presentation of barristers, the courtroom becoming more of a theatre with the jury easily manipulated and distracted, such as the ‘amorous juror case’’ of Alexander and Steen (he defendants appealed because a female juror had bombarded the prosecution barrister with romantic proposals)
How is the compulsory nature of jury service a disadvantage
This can cause resentment or strain which might lead to some jurors being keen to get away as soon as possible and will thus go along with the majority to bring the trial to an end
What did the case of R v Taylor and Taylor (1993) demonstrate about media influence as a disadvantage of jurors (still on topic of compulsory nature) and under what act would it not be a fair trial to be influenced by the media
Media influence can also be seen as a disadvantage on the grounds of article 6 ECHR - someone may not get a fair trial if they have been exposed to media reports before the case which could influence them, which was the case in R v Taylor and Taylor.R v Taylor & Taylor (1993):
Two sisters were charged with murder. Some newspapers published a still video sequence which gave a false impression of what has happening. After conviction, leave of appeal was granted because of the possible influence this picture could have on the jury’s verdict.
Mention any suggestions which may act as a better alterative to jurors
A single judge sitting alone would save time through not having to explain everything to a jury. This would also reduce the number of verdicts which are in defiance of the law (remember R v Owen? R v Kronlid and Others? R v Ponting?) because the judge would feel it their duty to uphold the law even if it was harsh.
This is the way trials are conducted in South Africa where jury trials were officially banned in 1969
Many European countries such as Germany, The Netherlands and the Czech Republic do not have jury trials.
A bench of judges consisting of three or five on a panel would give a more balanced view BUT would be far more expensive and would lose the element of public participation.
A specially trained jury selected from non-lawyers would ensure that the panel was capable of fulfilling its functions. However if they were full time, they might reflect the magistracy too closely and be only older, middle class people.
A mixed panel consisting of a judge and two lay members is used in Scandinavian countries.
This speeds up the trial process as the judge is involved in all discussions.
Community participation is retained but it could be argued that the judge might have too much influence on the lay members, who might be intimidated or defer to the experienced judge.
