Juries

Question 1

What case established the independence of the jury?

Answer 1

Bushell’s case (1670)

This case established that the jury was the sole arbiter of fact and then judge could not challenge its decision

Question 2

What more recent case demonstrates that judges must respect the independence of the jury?

Answer 2

R v McKenna (1960)

Question 3

What are basic qualifications of the jury?

Answer 3

Set out in the juries Act 1974, a person must be:

• Aged between 18 and 75
• Registered as a parliamentary or local gov elector
• ordinarily resident in the UK, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man for at least 5 years since 13th bday.

Question 4

Who are disqualified from jury service?

Answer 4

Disqualified for 10 years
Those who in past 10 years have:
Served a sentence of imprisonment 
Had a suspended sentence passed on them 
Had a community order 
Is on bail 

Disqualified permanently:
Imprisoned for life 
Imprisoned for public protection 
Served an extended sentence 
Served a term of imprisonment of 5yrs+

Question 5

Are those mentally disordered allowed to do jury service?

Answer 5

No. Those who suffer from mental illness, are resident in a hospital or similar institution or regularly attend treatment.
Under criminal justice act 2003 schedule 1

Question 6

Who are excused from jury service?

Answer 6

Full time serving members of the forces may be excused if commanding officer feels absence would be prejudicial to efficiency of the service.

Question 7

are those who are disabled discharged from becoming a juror?

Answer 7

the judge can only discharge the juror if he/she is satisfied that the disability means that the juror is not capable of acting effectively as a juror. however the mere fact of the disability does not prevent someone from acting as a juror.

Question 8

can deaf people become jurors?

Answer 8

those who are deaf need a sign-language interpreter, cannot sit as a juror as the law does not allow a 13th person to be present in the room.

Question 9

how are jurors selected?

Answer 9

each crown court has an official who is responsible for summoning, names selected at random from the electoral registers for the area which the court covers, done through computer, necessary to summons more than 12 as not known who will be disqualified or excused.

Question 10

what is vetting?

Answer 10

jurors may be checked for criminal record- R v Mason (1980). both prosecution and defence have a right to see the list, 2 types of vetting; police checks and wider background checks

Question 11

what is the Attorney General 1980 guidelines for vetting?

Answer 11

vetting should only be used in exceptional cases involving:
a) national security where part of evidence is likely to be given in camera
b) terrorist cases
vetting can only be carried out with Attorney General’s express permission.

Question 12

what is the selection process at court?

Answer 12

jurors divided into groups of 15 and allocated a court. at the start of trial, clerk will select 12 out of the 15 at random, they then come to the box to be sworn in as jurors. before sworn in prosecution and defence have a right to challenge one or more of the jurors

Question 13

how can the defence and prosecution challenge jurors?

Answer 13

• to the array
• for cause
• prosecution right to stand by (put to one side) jurors

Question 14

what is to the array?

Answer 14

a challenge to the whole jury on the basis that it has been chosen in an unrepresentative or biased way. R v Ford

Question 15

what is for cause?

Answer 15

challenging the right of an individual juror to sit on the jury, must be a valid reason e.g. they are disqualified, if juror knows or is related to a witness or defendant. if such people not removed, it can lead to subsequent conviction to quashed

Question 16

what is prosecution right to stand by juror?

Answer 16

only prosecution can exercise this right. it allows jurors who has been stood by to be put to the end of the list of potential jurors, so that not used on the jury unless there are not enough jurors.
prosecution does not have to give reason for this but Attorney Generals guidelines make it clear that this should be used sparingly.

Question 17

what is direct acquittal?

Answer 17

where a judge judge decides there is insufficient prosecution evidence to allow the case to continue, the jury is directed to find the D not guilty.

Question 18

what is a majority verdict?

Answer 18

if after 2 hours (longer if there are more Ds) the court has not reached a verdict, the judge can call them back and accept a majority verdict, allowed since 1967
where there is jury of 12, verdict can be 10:2 or 11:1. where there is jury of 9, decision has to be unanimous

Question 19

what is jury ‘nobbling’?

Answer 19

majority verdicts where introduced as a result of this. this is jurors being bribed or intimidated by associations of D into voting not guilty. where it was unanimous vote, only 1 need be bribed for jury to be unable to reach decision.

Question 20

what are the advantages of jury trial?

Answer 20

public confidence
jury equity
open system of justice
secrecy of jury room
impartiality

Question 21

how is public confidence an advantage of jury trial?

Answer 21

the right to be tried by ones peers is a bastion of liberty against the state, people have confidence in the impartiality and fairness of jury trial

Question 22

how is jury equity an advantage of jury trial?

Answer 22

since they are not legal experts, they are not bound to follow precedent of past cases or even acts of parliament, do not have to give reason for verdict so they decide case on their idea of ‘fairness’
Ponting’s Case (1984)

Question 23

how is open system of justice an advantage or jury trial?

Answer 23

viewed as making legal system more open, justice is seen to be done as members of public are involved in key roles, keeps law clearer as points have to be explained to the jury, enabling D to understand case more easily.

Question 24

how is secrecy of jury room an advantage of jury trial?

Answer 24

jury is free from pressure in its discussions, protected from outside influences when deciding on a verdict, allows jury to bring in verdicts that may be unpopular with the public, people would be less willing to serve on jury where discussions are made public.

Question 25

how is impartiality an advantage of jury trial?

Answer 25

impartial, not connected to anyone in the case. process of random selection should lead to an impartial jury as jurors will have different prejudices and so should cancel out each others biases.

Question 26

what are the disadvantages of jury trial?

Answer 26

perverse decisions
secrecy
jurors and the internet
racial bias
media influence 
lack of understanding
fraud trials
jury tampering
high acquittal rates

Question 27

how is perverse decisions a disadvantage of jury trial?

Answer 27

we looked before at jury equity and Ponting’s case and how it might be seen as fair. howeve, in some circumstances, this can be seen as a perverse decision; that is one which ignores the evidence and gives a wrong decision
R v Randle and Pottle.

Question 28

how is secrecy a disadvantage of jury trial?

Answer 28

earlier we said secrecy protects jury from pressure, however, this can be disadvantage because as not reasons have to be given for verdict, there is no way of knowing if jury understood the case and came to right decision for the right reasons.

Question 29

when can the courts inquire into the conduct of the jury in coming to its verdict?

Answer 29

1) where there has been a complete repudiation of the oath taken by jurors to try the case according to the evidence i.e. they have used other method to come to decision
R v Young (Stephen)

2) where extraneous material has been introduced into the jury room e.g. telephone calls
R v Karakaya (2005)

Question 30

how are jurors and the internet a disadvantage of jury trial?

Answer 30

judges direct jury to not look at internet for info, but this has become more common.
in 2010, report “Are juries fair?” was published, found that 12% of jurors admitted that they have gone on internet for info on the case.
this is an offence= 2 years prison

Question 31

how is racial bias a disadvantage of jury trial?

Answer 31

some may be biased against police, this is why certain criminal convictions disqualified.
some jurors are racially prejudiced: Sander v United Kingdom

Question 32

how is media influence a disadvantage of jury trial?

Answer 32

media coverage may influence jurors. this is common in high-profile cases.
R v Taylor and Taylor

Question 33

how is lack of understanding a disadvantage of jury trial?

Answer 33

many do not understand the case which they are trying, can result in unfair decisions

Question 34

how is fraud trial a disadvantage of jury trial?

Answer 34

fraud trials with complex accounts given in evidence can create problems as its hard to understand. these cases are also very long, jurors have to be able to be away from work for months, can be a great strain on them.

Question 35

how is jury tampering a disadvantage of jury trial?

Answer 35

friends of D may try to interfere with jury, by bribing jury members to bring in a not guilty verdict, or by threatening them. police may be used to protect jury but they may not be effective and is expensive to remove police from work.
to combat this, s 44 of criminal justice act 2003 provides that if there has been effort to tamper, prosecution can apply to be heard by judge alone
R v Twomey and others

Question 36

how is high acquittal rates a disadvantage of jury trial?

Answer 36

juries often criticized on the grounds that they acquit too many Ds. approximately 60% of those pleading not guilty at crown court are acquitted. However, this is not a true pic of the workings of juries as it includes cases discharged by the judge. when these decisions are excluded from the stats, it is found juries actually acquit 35% of cases.

Question 37

what are other general disadvantages with jury trial?

Answer 37

compulsory nature makes it unpopular, some rush their verdict in order to leave as quickly as possible, can be a strain especially where jurors have to listen to horrific evidence.