Evaluation of Juries [Juries] Flashcards
Maintain confidence in the legal system [Advantage No.1]
- Lord Devin says ‘they are the lamp that shows that freedom lives’
- no loyalty/connection, make decision on fact
- unlikely to become case hardened
Research conducted by the Home Office in 2006 states that 66% of jurors said that their jury service had boosted their confidence in the legal system. Further research done in 2009 suggested that 69% of the public agreed that the right to trial by jury is important and should be kept in its current form.
Fair and balanced decision making [Advantage No.2]
- having 12 POVs can only be beneficial
- allows for discussion/compromise and avoids bias
Fairness is provided as a result of the weight of numbers. If all 12 jurors, or even a majority, reach the same decision, then it is more likely to be correct then if the power is vested in one person alone where there is a risk of prejudice affecting the outcome.
Can make decisions based on conscience
+ Free from pressure [Advantage No.3]
In the case of Gildersdale, a jury acquitted a mother of attempted murder after injecting her heavily ill daughter with a large dose of morphine in order to alleviate her pain. In the case of R v Ponting the jury acquitted Ponting despite him freely admitting to leaking Ministry of Defence documents relating to the Falkland’s War.
This was shown in Bushells case when a judge refused to accept a not guilty verdict and sent the jurors back to redeliberate with no food or drink, and when they returned with another not guilty verdict, the judge fined them and locked them up over night. On appeal it was stated that a jury cannot be punished for their verdict and a judge cannot challenge it.
Representative [Advantage No.4]
- JCSB (Jury Central Summoning Bureau) select from electoral register so random mix
- the prosecution/defence can also challenge the jury to array or for the cause
- ensures mix of age/gender/background
A survey of 84 courts showed that 81 of them did not under-represent those of ethnic minorities and showed that their juries reflected the local population.
Inconsistent and Unreliable [Disadvantage No.1]
- subjective nature means 2 could reach different verdicts with same facts
- lack of legal training could mean decisions without proper consideration
The effects of this can be seen in the case of R v Young, where the jury found the defendant guilty after ‘contacting’ the victim by ouija board whilst drunk, and in R v Owens, where the jury found the defendant not guilty of attempted murder because they sympathised with Ds reason for trying to kill V.
Secrecy of the jury deliberation room [Disadvantage No.2]
- The Contempt of Court Act 1981
- potential problems cannot be raised and corrected
In the case of R v Misra, the House of Lords ruled that there could be no investigation into discussions taken place in the deliberation room even after a juror had stated that the other jurors thought the use of an interpreter was a ‘ploy’.
Media Coverage [Disadvantage No.3]
- high profile cases will likely get a lot of coverage before case reaches trial
- hard for the verdict to be based solely what is heard in court
In the case of R v West, the first killing happened in 1967 with West only being charged in 1994. Throughout this period, local and national newspapers had reported on the missing persons cases and so the jury clearly risked being influenced by such coverage.
West tried to argue that this denied her a fair trial but the Court of Appeal heard that the Judge’s directions ensured that fairness prevailed.
Acquittal Minded [Disadvantage No.4]
- standard is ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’
- worry of convicting an innocent, more Ds are acquitted
Typically, juries acquit around 60% of Ds compared to 20% in the Magistrates Court.
- better to be cautious then to take an innocent’s freedom
- could mean guilty set free because of convincing defence barrister
