juries Flashcards
what are the qualifications required to be a jury?
The Juries Act 1974 (as amended) sets out qualifications of jurors. These are:
* must be aged between 18-75
* must be on the electoral register
* be a U.K. resident for 5 years since being thirteen
* not disqualified, ineligible or excused
disqualifications for being a juror
Some criminal convicictons will disqualify a person from jury service
* or life – if received sentence of imprisonment of above 5 years
* for 10 years – if received sentence of imprisonment of less than 5 years or received a community order
* a person is also disqualified whilst on bail for the duration of the bail term
ineligibility of being a juror
- a person suffering from a ‘mental disorder’ as defined in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 cannot sit as a juror
- a person lacking capacity e.g. not speaking English or suffering from a disability which results in the juror not being capable of acting effectively as a juror is also ineligible
excusals for being a juror
discretionary excusals – you can ask to be excused for various reasons (the court will usually just defer it until another time)
* Booked holiday
* Exams
* New baby
* Sole carer of a vulnerable person
* Business meeting that cannot be changed
is anybody excused to being a juror by reason of their job?
- before 2003, Doctors, lawyers and police could all excuse themselves by reason of their job
- CJA 2003 – abolished this right
- judges are also allowed to sit as jurors since 2003
explain the selection of jurors
1) Computer at the Central Office randomly selects names from the electoral register every two weeks
2) The computer sends out summonses to these people through the post
3) They are asked to attend their local Crown Court on a particular date - £1000 fine if you don’t turn up
4) Once they arrive they are shown a short training video explaining their role
5) They are sent to the ‘jury pool’ where they await direction to a courtroom
6) A courtroom official will then enter the jury pool and read 15 names at random. These 15 individuals will follow the official to the courtroom
7) Here the official will then read 12 names at random and this is the jury, the other 3 remain as reserves and return to the jury pool
8) vetting and challenging can occur
9) jurors are then sworn in
vetting
Both the prosecution and the defence have the right to see the list of potential jurors and may decide the jury pool needs to be vetted. There are two types:
- 1) Routine police checks to eliminate those who are disqualified (R v Mason 1980)
- 2) Wider background checks for political affiliations BUT this is rarely used (exceptional cases e.g. terrorism and national security issues) and must have AG’s permission.
Brought to light through the ‘ABC’ trial 1978 (2 journalists and a soldier charged with collecting secret information). It was discovered the jury had been vetted for their loyalty. A new trial was ordered.
challenging - what are the 3 types?
Once 12 jurors are selected (but before they are sworn in), the prosecution/defence can challenge one or more of the jury.
- Challenge to the array
- Challenge for cause
- Right of stand-by jurors (only available to the prosecution)
Challenge to the array
- challenge on the way the jury was selected e.g. it is biased or unrepresentative
- used in ‘Romford’ jury = two jurors from same street
- R v Ford – challenge cannot be simply because jury is not multi-racial
Challenge for cause
- challenging a person’s right to be on a jury because of connection with a case
- R v Wilson – knew somebody related to the case
Right of stand-by jurors
- (only available to the prosecution)
- allows a member of the jury to be put at the end of the list so that they will not be used unless there are not enough jurors.
what are is the role of the jury in criminal cases?
- Juries only sit at the Crown Court
- They hear indictable and some triable either way offences
- Always sit as a panel of 12
- Split Function -They must weigh up the facts and evidence and give the verdict. The judge will direct the jury on the law and deal with sentencing
Verdicts
* Unanimous verdicts – all jurors agree
* Majority verdicts – after 2 hours of deliberation, the judge can accept a majority verdict (11:1 or 10:2). These were introduced in 1967 because of fears of jury nobbling
* If a majority decision cannot be reached e.g. 9:3 or below then the jury is declared a ‘hung jury’ and a retrial is ordered with a new jury.
* Jurors DO NOT give reasons for their decisions and the decisions are always made in secrete. The Criminal Justice and Courts Act (2015) – makes it a criminal offence to intentionally disclose or ask about anything that happens in the jury room
evaluation of juries - Public Confidence
- considered to be fundamental to a democratic society
- Right to be tried by one’s peers dates back to 1215 (Magna Carta)
- Lord Devlin: “the lamp that shows that freedom lives”
- Public very happy with jury trials overall
evaluation of juries - Jury Tampering & Media Influence
- Defendants sometimes try and interfere with the jury (threats / bribes) so they’re too afraid to find them guilty
- If evidence emerges of this – prosecution can apply for judge only trial.
- R v Twomey and others (2009) - serious attempt at jury tampering. CoA allowed trial without a jury (1st time ever)
- there is concern that the media influence cases
- R v Taylor and Taylor (1993) – risk of confusion of jurors
evaluation of juries - Jury Equity
- Jurors are allowed to decide cases based on fairness rather than what the law ‘says’ (jury equity).
- Ponting’s case (1984) – civil servant leaked info on sinking of the Belgrano in Falklands War by the U.K – showed U.K. Gov had lied. Jury refused to convict him even though he had clearly broken the Official Secrets Act (1911)
