Criminal Courts and Lay People- Lay magistrates and Juries: qualification, selection, appointment and juries role in criminal cases

Question 1

Explain what makes someone eligible for jury service (8 marks)

Explain the role that juries play in our criminal justice system (8 marks)

Explain the role played by LAY PEOPLE in the criminal courts (8 marks)

Explain how LAY PEOPLE are eligible and selected for use in the criminal courts (8 marks)

Remember - Lay people means juries and magistrates so your answer will need to consider BOTH.

Answer 1

Explain the role that juries play in our criminal justice system (8 marks)
WHEN juries are needed for criminal cases – only for not guilty pleas, only in Crown Court (indictable cases or either way cases referred by Magistrates or at the defendant’s request.
WHAT juries do in a criminal trial - listen to evidence, see exhibits/witnesses, make notes, ask questions to judge via usher, retire to jury room, elect a foreperson, represent society
HOW jurors make their decision – need to decide on guilt based on the facts, standard of proof, unanimous and majority verdicts, hung juries.
Issues such as jury secrecy, jury nobbling, trial without a jury - R v Twomey

Question 2

1) QUALIFICATIONS of juries:
How many qualifications are there and what act set out these qualifications

Answer 2

There are three qualifications and they are set out in THE JURIES ACT 1974

Question 3

What are the three qualifications set out in the Juries Act 1974

Answer 3

1) Must be aged 18 and 75 (potential jurors must be aged 18-75)
2) Must be registered as a parliamentary or local government elector (in other words, must be on the electoral register)
3) Must be a resident in the UK for at least 5 years since age of 13

Question 4

What is the Juries Act 1974 amended by

Answer 4

By the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015

Question 5

‘Explain what makes someone eligible for jury service’ answer:

Question 6

What are the three main ways someone may not be qualified for jury duty plus an extra

Answer 6

1) A discretionary excusal or excusal
2) Those unable to sit include those disqualified
3) Those ineligible
EXTRA; a deferral

Question 7

Introduction:
What did the changes made in 2004 do

Answer 7

Many categories of person used to be considered ineligible or excused from jury service.
HOWEVER, changes made in 2004 meant that ANYONE can now serve on a jury, including previously excused people such as judges, police officers and members of the legal profession.

Question 8

What initiated or encouraged the changes in 2004 and what changes did this lead to in terms of legislation

Answer 8

The Auld Review of the Criminal Justice System in 2001critisised jury service and said it was too easily avoided, It said that the pool of jurors needed to be widened to increase participation meaning that juries were more representative.

This led to changes being introduced in the Criminal justice act 2003 which amended the original criteria in the Juries Act 1974. The changes were designed to ensure that EVERY eligible person should should perform this duty if called upon to do so.

Question 9

What did the introduction to this amendment lead to

Answer 9

The Juries act 1974 as amended meant that ANYONE can now serve on a jury, including previously excused people such as judges, police officers and members of the legal profession. (think about evaluation)

Question 10

1) EXCUSALS:
Provide a profession which allows for an excusal in certain circumstnaces

Answer 10

• A member of the armed forces
• Can be excused from jury service if their commanding officer provides a statement that certifies that their absence from service would be prejudicial to the efficiency of the service.

Question 11

What professions previously had a right to be excused but not anymore due to changes in April 2004

Answer 11

prior to April 2004, people in certain occupations such as doctors or pharmacists has a right to be excused - they not longer have this right.

Question 12

A discretionary excusal may be applied for. What does this do

Answer 12

This will defer jury service. A deferral may be granted for ‘good reason’. eg armed forces personnel may have jury service deferred if their commanding officer certifies they are needed elsewhere

Question 13

Discretionary excusals also apply to who

Answer 13

Discretionary excusals can also apply to people who are too ill to sit - for example people with a disability (such as being profoundly deaf or blind) or people aged between 65-75 can be excused if they can show they have a good reason to be.

Question 14

How long can a person be excused from serving as a juror

Answer 14

12 months in some circumstances.

Question 15

What does this do

Answer 15

This takes someone off the list for 12 months, so when they are put back on it, they may not get chosen at random again.

Question 16

This is only used in exceptional circumstances such as…

Answer 16

It is only used in exceptional circumstances such as if the person has already been on jury service in the past 2 years or if the person was on a longer or distressing trial such as the Ian Huntley murder trial.

Question 17

2) A DEFERRAL
A person can ask for a deferral which will do what exactly

Answer 17

A deferral will put jury service back to a more convenient date in the next 12 months if for example they are a student sitting exams, they have childcare problems or they have a holiday booked.

Question 18

How many times can service be deferred

Answer 18

Service can only be deferred ONCE up to a maximum of 12 months from the original date

Question 19

3) DISQUALIFICATION:
Name the four types of people who are disqualified from jury service

Answer 19

• Are on bail for a criminal offence
• Who have ever been sentenced to 5 years or more in prison or youth custody following convictions for criminal offences.
• Who have served a custodial or community sentence within the last 10 years. If this is the case they are disqualified from jury service for 10 years.
• Who have been diagnosed with a mental illness, psychopathic disorder or mental handicap

Question 20

Name the four types of people who are permanently disqualified from jury service

Answer 20

The only people who are disqualified from jury service are those who:
- Imprisoned for life
- imprisoned for public protection
- serving an extended sentence
- serving a term of imprisonment of 5 years or more
- Are on bail for a criminal offence
- Who have ever been sentenced to 5 years or more in prison or youth custody following convictions for criminal offences.
- Who have served a custodial or community sentence within the last 10 years. If this is the case they are disqualified from jury service for 10 years.
- Who have been diagnosed with a mental illness, psychopathic disorder or mental handicap

Question 21

Name the four types of people who are disqualified for 10 years from jury service if at any time in the last 10 years they have done this

Answer 21

for 10 years
At any time in the last 10 years:
- served a sentence of imprisonment
- had a suspended sentence passed on them
- had a community order
- is on bail

Question 22

4) THOSE INELIGIBLE:
Provide example of people who would be ineligible

Answer 22

Include people with certain mental health issues (not automatically ineligible)
People who cannot speak or understand English
Those with a disability which would stop them carrying out the role and deafness

Question 23

What act showed the mentally disordered cannot sit on jury

Answer 23

Cannot sit on a jury Criminal Justice Act 2003 schedule 1

Question 24

2) SELECTION or appointment of juries:
example question:

Question 25

At each Crown Court there is a what and what are they responsible for doing

Answer 25

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 area the court covers.

Question 26

Names being selected at random from the electoral registers is done through a computer selection where

Answer 26

This is done through a computer selection at the JURY CENTRAL SUMMONING BUREAU

Question 27

How often is the electoral register updated

Answer 27

Every year with the names and addresses of all people entitled to vote.

Question 28

Where are they summoned to serve

Answer 28

At a Crown Court reasonably close to where they live

Question 29

Is it necessary to summon more than how many jurors and why

Answer 29

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 may be excused.

Question 30

At bigger how many summonses may be sent out each fortnight

Answer 30

150 summonses

Question 31

What must those summonses do if there is any reason why they should not or cannot attend

Answer 31

Must notify the court

Question 32

All others are expected to attend how long jury service

Answer 32

For two weeks jury service, though if the case they are trying goes on for more than two weeks, they will have to stay until the trial is completed

Question 33

Is jury service compulsory

Answer 33

jury service is compulsory and failure to attend or to be unfit to serve due to drugs or alcohol is a criminal offence known as contempt of court.

Question 34

What will happen where it is known that a trial may be exceptionally long, such as a complicated fraud trial

Answer 34

Potential jurors are asked if they will be able to serve for such a long period.

Question 35

What does the random selection from computer ensure

Answer 35

It is meant to ensure that the jury is independent and free from bias.

Question 36

What is the next step after potential jurors are selected

Answer 36

The potential jurors assemble at court and confirm their identity. It is likely that there will be more than 100 other ‘‘jurors in waiting’’.

Question 37

The next step

Answer 37

They are shown a DVD explaining their role as a juror and what happens in the courtroom. Some people turn up every day for 2 weeks, but their name is never actually called.

Question 38

When a court is ready to select a jury, who choose and how many are chosen

Answer 38

When a court is ready to select a jury, a court official chooses a group of 15 people at random from the 100+ ‘‘jury in waiting’’

Question 39

Then what occurs in the courtroom

Answer 39

There is also random selection in the courtroom when 12 people are chosen to form the jury from 15 called forward - this is done by writing all 15 names on bits of paper and then picking 12 at random.

Question 40

Why do they take on more than 12 to begin with

Answer 40

To make sure that no one juror is on a case with which they have a connection - there are three who can swap in if someone declares they should not take part in this particular trial.

Question 41

JURY VETTING:
What does this mean

Answer 41

Once the list of potential jurors is known, both the prosecution and defence have the right to see that list. In some cases it may be decided that this pool of potential jurors should be ‘vetted’ i.e checked for suitability in case any disqualified people have slipped through and not declared that they should not do their jury service. This is usually carried out by prosecution.

Question 42

What are the two types of vetting

Answer 42

There are two types: Wider Background checks
Police checks

Question 43

WIDER BACKGROUND CHECKS:
When is vetting only justifiable and where and who states this

Answer 43

Guidelines have been published by the Attorney General which state that vetting is only justifiable in exceptional cases
- such as those involving:
terrorism
the Official Secrets Acts
and ‘professional’ criminals such as gangs

Question 44

Vetting in these cases requires the consent of who

Answer 44

The Attorney General

Question 45

What would the act of vetting involve

Answer 45

Would involve checking Criminal Record Office records, Special Branch and Intelligence Services’ records and the knowledge of local CID officers

Question 46

List the key criteria for being eligible to sit on a jury (as amended from Juries Act 1974)
Give 3 examples of people who would not be eligible to sit on a jury
When is a jury needed? Which court? Which circumstances? Which types of cases?
What did Bushell’s case show us about jury equity?
Are lawyers, judges and police officers made to do jury service? Explain
What is a hung jury?

Question 47

What is the case for wider background checks for jury vetting which demonstrated that jury vetting does not occur solely due to doubt etc.. and that juries are generally trusted to be fair

Answer 47

R v Andrews (1998)
D murdered her boyfriend.
D alleged a fictitious motorist had killed him in a ‘‘road rage’’ incident.
D claimed that adverse (unfavourable) press coverage had prevented a fair trial.
The trial judge refused to allow a questionnaire to be put to the jury to identify possible prejudice
HELD: The questioning of potential jurors; either orally or by questionnaire, was to be avoided except in cases where they might reasonably have had a financial interest in the events on which the trial was based. The law generally assumes that jurors will be faithful to their oaths to return a true verdict in accordance with the evidence - the appeal was dismissed.

Question 48

POLICE CHECKS:
What does this mean

Answer 48

Routine police checks are made on prospective jurors to eliminate those disqualified.

Question 49

What case demonstrated police checks when vetting can be unconstitutional

Answer 49

R v Crown Court at Sheffield, ex parte Brownlow (1980)
D was a police officer, judge gave the defence permission to vet the jury panel for convictions.
This was criticised in the COA who said vetting was unconstitutional and a serious invasion of privacy which was not sanctioned by the Juries Act 1974

Question 50

What case demonstrated unauthorised vetting of criminal records were allowed for police checks

Answer 50

R v Mason (1980)
Where it was revealed that the Chief Constable for Northamptonshire had been allowing widespread use of unauthorised vetting of criminal records, the COA approved this type of vetting.
Lord Justice Lawton pointed out that since it is a criminal offence to serve on a jury while disqualified, the police were just doing their normal duty of preventing crime by checking for criminal records.

Question 51

JURY CHALLENGING:
What happens once the court has selected the panel of 12 jurors

Answer 51

These jurors come into the jury box to be sworn in as jurors.

Question 52

Challenging a jury at this point is now a rare event, but there are 3 main ways that it can occur; name the ways.

Answer 52

• Stand by the crown
• Challenge for the cause
• Challenge to the Array

Question 53

Jury challenging - stand by the crown:
Who is challenging stand by the crown

Answer 53

This is a challenge by the prosecution or a judge.

Question 54

When is this invoked

Answer 54

This is rarely invoked and only in cases of national security or terrorism and where vetting has been authorised.

Question 55

Who provides permission for stand by the crown

Answer 55

Where it is used, permission of the Attorney General is needed.

Question 56

What happens to the juror stood by

Answer 56

The juror stood by is put to the end of the list of potential jurors, so they will not have to be used on the jury unless there are not enough other jurors.

Question 57

Jury Challenging - Challenge for the cause:
Who is the one challenging

Answer 57

This is a challenge by either the defence or prosecution

Question 58

What does this mean or when is it used

Answer 58

This is a request that a juror be dismissed because there is reason to believe they cannot be fair, unbiased or capable. This may include bias on the grounds of race, religion, political beliefs or occupation.

Question 59

Name some examples of reasons to challenge for the cause

Answer 59

Examples include:
- Knowing someone in the case
- An obvious prejudice
- Prior experience in a similar case
- Ineligibility or disqualification

Question 60

What did the case of R v Gough (1993) state about bias when jury challenging for the cause

Answer 60

R v Gough (1993):
This case held that where a juror is challenged on the grounds of bias, the test is whether there is a ‘‘real danger’’ that they are biased.

Question 61

Challenging to the array:
Who is the one challenging

Answer 61

This is a challenge by either the defence or prosecution

Question 62

Who is being challenged

Answer 62

This is where the whole jury panel is challenged

Question 63

On what grounds are the jury being challenged

Answer 63

The jury panel is challenged on the grounds that the summoning officer is biased or acted improperly.

Question 64

What case demonstrated there was a right to challenge the array

Answer 64

In the Romford Jury case 1993:
Out of a panel of 12 jurors, 9 came from Romford, with two of them living in the same street within 20 doors of each other

Question 65

What case was challenged due to race, but what other case held that you cannot challenge on these grounds unless not random

Answer 65

R v Fraser 1987
Although the D was from an ethnic minority, all the jurors were white.
ALTHOUGH in R v Ford 1989
It was held that if the jury was chosen in a random manner then it could not be challenged because it was not multiracial

Question 66

Racial challenging:
What is the stance on this and how is it a problem

Answer 66

Despite recent reforms to make juries more representative and to remove the middle class “opt-out”, the jury is still not racially representative. The issue of racism in the criminal justice system has been of public concern mainly due to the murder in 1993 of the black teenager Stephen Lawrence and criticisms of the way the case was handled.
Groups such as the Commission for Racial Equality have argued that where race is an issue in a trial, the jury should contain at least three ethnic minority individuals. This had been proposed by the Runciman Royal Commission in 1993 but was rejected by the government at that time.
The same proposal was included more recently in the Auld Report in 2001 but was again rejected by the government on the grounds that it would undermine the idea that a jury is selected at random.

Question 67

What case demonstrated the judge should have ordered a re-trial after alleged racism

Answer 67

Sander v UK (2000) - This case went before the ECHR and it was held that the judge should have discharged the jury and ordered a retrial when a note was sent to the judge alleging racism within the jury room.

Question 68

What case demonstrated that even when racism is present, if it is within the deliberation room then it cannot be reason for appeal

Answer 68

Gregory v UK ECHR (1997) - D, who was black, was tried for robbery. After the jury had been deliberating for about two hours, a note was passed from the jury to the judge, saying “Jury showing racial overtones. One member to be excused.”
The judge showed the note to the prosecution and the defence. He then recalled the jury and gave them a careful direction on the need for them to put any form of prejudice out of their minds and to decide the case, in accordance with their oath, on the evidence.
Held: Appeal against conviction dismissed. Undoubtedly, there must be a general rule that the deliberations of the jury must remain secret.

Question 69

What is an alternative to trial by jury

Answer 69

A single judge sitting alone

Question 70

What is the advantages to this alternative

Answer 70

• Would save time through not having to explain everything too 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 is 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.

Question 71

Name 3 other alternatives

Answer 71

• A bench of judges consisting of 3 or 5 on a panel would give a more balanced view BUT would be far more expensive and would lose the element of public participation
• A specifically 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.

Question 72

List the key criteria for being eligible to sit on a jury (as amended from Juries Act 1974)
Give 3 examples of people who would not be eligible to sit on a jury

Are lawyers, judges and police officers made to do jury service? Explain

Question 73

What did Bushell’s case show us about jury equity?

Answer 73

A jury cannot be ordered to convict against their conscience - Bushells case 1670

Question 74

Provide the facts of the Bushell’s case

Answer 74

Having failed to convict his father, Sir William Penn, for treason, the state then prosecuted his barrister son (and William Mead) for practicing the ‘‘Quacker’’ religion.

The jury, led by Edward Bushell, acquitted both Penn and Mead of ‘‘leading a dissident form of worship’’

The judges repeatedly directed them to convict. The jury refused and were imprisoned. The judge said ‘‘you shall not be dismissed til we have a verdict the court will accept’’

The jurors were locked up “without meat, drink, fire or tobacco” for two nights before being fined and imprisoned until they paid. They obtained a writ of habeas corpus* and a ruling that they should not be punished for their verdict.

The Chief Justice released Penn and Mead, upholding “the right of juries to give their verdict by their conscience”.
A memorial plaque commemorating ‘Bushell’s Case’ is in the Old Bailey. This case shows Juries have the right to make whatever decision they want, regardless of what the Judge thinks.

Question 75

What was the more modern case where this also occurred

Answer 75

A more modern case where this happened was R v McKenna (1960)
The judge tried to rush the jury to return a verdict or he would lock them up

Question 76

Explain and name the case which confirmed Bushells case in which there are no circumstances where a judge is entitled to direct a jury to return a verdict of guilty.

Answer 76

R v Wang (2005)
D was found in possession of a martial arts sword and a ghurka-style knife. He testified he was a Buddhist and practised Shaolin and that he had them with him for good reason.
The judge directed the jury to convict. On appeal to the House of Lords the conviction was quashed.

Question 77

What is the importance of the power to decide on a case based on conscience

Answer 77

The importance of this power is that juries may acquit a defendant, even when the evidence demands a guilty verdict. This is known as JURY EQUITY.

Question 78

What occurred in the case of R v Owen (1991) and what did this also show

Answer 78

The D is a man whose son had been killed by a lorry driver, who had never taken a driving test, and who also had a long criminal record for drink-driving and violence.
The lorry driver, who showed no remorse for killing the D’s son, was convicted of a driving offence and sentenced to 18 months in prison; he was released after a year. He then resumed driving unlawfully

After contacting a number of people and authorities,, to try to secure justice for his son, the defendant finally took a shotgun and injured the lorry driver. He was being charged with a number of offences, including attempted murder and GBH with intent.
HELD: Not guilty - perverse verdict (gone against even with clear evidence)

Question 79

What did the similar case of R v Kronlid and others (1996) show and explain case

Answer 79

• The Ds are 3 women who broke into a british aerospace factory and caused damage in excess of 1.5 million to a fighter plane.
• The women have admitted doing it- they in fact left a video explaining why they had done it in the cockpit of the plane- BUT they claimed that had the defence under s.3 criminal law act 1967, which provides that it is lawful to commit a crime in order to prevent another (usually more serious) crime from being committed, and this may involve using ‘such force as is reasonable in all the circumstances.’

The defendants argue that the plane was due to be sold to the Indonesian Government, which was involved in the oppression of East Timor. The women claim that the Indonesians had killed at least a third of the population of East Timor, and the jet was going to be used to kill off the remaining population
HELD: not guilty

Question 80

Explain another jury equity case of R v Ponting (1985)

Answer 80

R v Ponting
- D was a civil servant working in the ministry of defence saw documents showing the government had lied about the sinking of the ship during the falklands war. D gave copies of these documents to an opposition MP so that the matter could be raised in parliament. D was charged under the Official Secret Act
HELD; despite the judges clear direction to the jury that D’s conduct did amount to an offence, the jury acquitted him. This was considered a perverse verdict.

Question 81

What is a directed acquittal

Answer 81

2001 – The Auld Report was a report, commissioned by the government and carried out by Lord Justice Auld, a Judge in the Court of Appeal. He was commissioned by the Lord Chancellor in 1999 to look at ways of modernising the courts system, which had long been seen as archaic and inefficient.
He recommended that both prosecution and defence lawyers should have the right to appeal against a perverse jury verdict - one that went against the law, like the acquittal of the civil servant Clive Ponting on Official Secrets Act charges, or against the evidence.
This would compromise the controversial power of jury equity. It has NOT been implemented.
However, where there is insufficient evidence put forward by the prosecution, Judges CAN tell juries they must formally return a not guilty verdict. This is known as a DIRECTED ACQUITTAL.

Question 82

THE ROLE of a juror in CRIMINAL CASES:
When is a jury needed? Which court? Which circumstances? Which types of cases?

Answer 82

• Jury trials only take place in the CROWN COURT for indictable cases (such as rape, murder and manslaughter) where D has pleaded not guilty.

Question 83

What does their workload amount to

Answer 83

It amounts to less than 1 percent of all criminal cases (crown court indictable offences where D has pleaded not guilty)

Question 84

What is the jury made up of

Answer 84

A jury is made up of 12 male and female jurors.

Question 85

What is the jurors role

Answer 85

the jurors role is to decide, based on the evidence presented, whether a D is guilty or not guilty of the crime they have been charged with
Jury listens to the evidence and the summing up by the judge

Question 86

What does the jury do before deciding a verdict or at the end of the trial

Answer 86

the jury will retire to a jury room to discuss the case and will elect a foreperson to deliver the verdict to the court
What goes on in the jury room is secret
Whilst a unanimous decision is preferred, a majority decision may be allowed, for example, 10-2. No reason for the decision is required
jurors are not expected to have any legal knowledge

Question 87

What is the jury masters of

Answer 87

The JURY are masters of the facts, whereas a judge is a master of the law- he will guide and advise the jury on what the law is in the case

Question 88

How long is the average trial

Answer 88

The average trial lasts a day and a half

Question 89

Can jurors sit on more than one trial

Answer 89

Yes, they can sit on more than on trial - it depends on the number of trials going ahead, the number of jurors in the selection pool and the random selection process.

Question 90

Where are the jurors kept

Answer 90

The jurors are kept apart from all the other people involved in the trial at all times.

Question 91

What will jurors do within the trial

Answer 91

Jurors will listen to evidence and see exhibits such as items involved in the crime, photos and CCTV footage.
They can take notes but they must be destroyed by the end of the trial - the whole process of deliberation is mean to be secret.
They have to weigh up all the facts and decide for themselves what actually happened. They will observe how each witness performs during examination and cross-examination in an effort to judge the credibility of that person

Question 92

Jurors have dual function in the administration of justice; what are these two things

Answer 92

1. They consider the facts and return a verdict.
2. They represent society and symbolise democracy

Question 93

Making a decision:
What happens

Answer 93

• When the evidence is completed and the lawyers have made closing speeches to sum up their arguments, the judge sums up the case to the jury and explains the law
• The jury then retire to the jury room to make their verdict
• Each juror can only take any notes they made into the jury room with them, and any exhibits submitted during the trial and a copy of the indictment (list of the offences D was charged with)
• Jurors are not allowed their mobile phones in the jury room
• Jurors can only give a guilty verdict if the prosecution have proved the case ‘‘so that the jury are sure’’ of Ds guilt ‘‘beyond all reasonable doubt’’
• If there is any doubt in their minds, they must acquit
• The jurys decision should be unanimous and they must spend at least 2 hours trying to reach a verdict on which they all agree
• Before the Criminal Justice Act 1967, ALL cases had to have unanimousd verdicts
• Nowadays, judges will often accept majority verdicts of 11:1 or 10:2. This happens 20 percent of cases.

Question 94

What is a hung jury

Answer 94

Anything less than 10:2 is known as a HUNG JURY

Question 95

Provide a statistic about hung juries

Answer 95

In the last two years, hung juries in 2009 where no verdict has been reached doubed in 2006 - 52 hung juries in E and w

Question 96

Why were majority verdicts introduced

Answer 96

Because of the fear of jury ‘nobbling’,

Question 97

What is jury nobbling

Answer 97

When jurors are bribed or intimidated by an acquaintance or friend of the defendant into returning a ‘‘not guilty’’ verdict.
When a jury had to be unanimous, only one juror needed to be persuaded to cause a stalemate in which the jury were unable to reach a decision

Question 98

What legislation combats jury nobbling and how

Answer 98

To combat jury nobbling, sec 44 Criminal Justice Act 2003 provides that, where there has already been an attempt to tamper with a jury in the case, the prosecution can apply for the case to be heard by the judge alone:

Question 99

In what case was there a judge only trial due to jury nobbling

Answer 99

R v Twomey and others (2009)
this is the first and only case where trial without a jury was approved.
The Ds were charged with various offences connected to a large robbery from a warehouse at heathrow. Three previous trials had collapsed and there has been a ‘‘serious attempt at jury tampering’’ in the last of them.
The prosecution applied to a single judge for the trial to take place without a jury.
The judge refused BUT the COA overturned this decision, ordering that the trial should take place without a jury.