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

Question

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

Answer 1

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.

Answer 2

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

Answer 3

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

Answer 4

At a Crown Court reasonably close to where they live

Answer 5

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.

Answer 6

150 summonses

Answer 7

Must notify the court

Answer 8

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

Answer 9

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.

Answer 10

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

Answer 11

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

Answer 12

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

Answer 13

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.

Answer 14

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''

Answer 15

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.

Answer 16

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.

Answer 17

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.

Answer 18

There are two types: Wider Background checks Police checks

Answer 19

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

Answer 20

The Attorney General

Answer 21

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

Answer 22

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.

Answer 23

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

Answer 24

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

Answer 25

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.

Answer 26

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

Answer 27

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

Answer 28

This is a challenge by the prosecution or a judge.

Answer 29

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

Answer 30

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

Answer 31

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.

Answer 32

This is a challenge by either the defence or prosecution

Answer 33

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.

Answer 34

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

Answer 35

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.

Answer 36

This is a challenge by either the defence or prosecution

Answer 37

This is where the whole jury panel is challenged

Answer 38

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

Answer 39

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

Answer 40

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

Answer 41

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.

Answer 42

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.

Answer 43

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.

Answer 44

A single judge sitting alone

Answer 45

- 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.

Answer 46

- 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.

Answer 47

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

Answer 48

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.

Answer 49

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

Answer 50

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.

Answer 51

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.

Answer 52

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)

Answer 53

- 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

Answer 54

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.

Answer 55

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.

Answer 56

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

Answer 57

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

Answer 58

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

Answer 59

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

Answer 60

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

Answer 61

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

Answer 62

The average trial lasts a day and a half

Answer 63

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.

Answer 64

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

Answer 65

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

Answer 66

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

Answer 67

- 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.

Answer 68

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

Answer 69

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

Answer 70

Because of the fear of jury 'nobbling',

Answer 71

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

Answer 72

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:

Answer 73

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.