juries Flashcards
who can be on a jury? (qualifications to be on a jury)
18-75 years old,
on electoral register,
resident in the Uk for 5 years after 13th birthday,
who can’t be on a jury? (qualifications to be on a jury)
disqualified due to criminal convictions or mental disorders,
excused by right or discretionary,
discharged (unfit to serve) due to health, disability, language issues, behavior,
process for selection of jury (8 marks)
- Jury Central Summoning Bureau produces random list for electoral register
- summons sent to each person a long with a form to return confirming they do not fall into any of the disqualified or excused groups
- forms returned and those who cannot do jury service are removed
- potential list produced and made public
- jury vetting then takes place to check a jurors suitability to hear the case
- jurors sent a pack and given a date to attend court
- they attend on date and go to jury waiting room
- the jury for a case is chosen be random ballot and the first 12 names are called out
- challenges may take place, challenge for cause can be used to challenge the right of a juror to sit on the jury, or challenges to the array are when the whole jury is challenged on the basis it is unrepresentative
- the jurors are then sworn in
the role of a jury in a criminal case (8 marks)
juries decide 2% of cases - approx. 30,000 trials a year
they are sworn in
listen to evidence from prosecution and defence lawyers and witnesses, look at exhibits related to case e.g. CCTV images and forensic evidence
therefore they are “Arbiters of fact” as they decide true facts of the case
judge presides over case and directs the jury of any legal issues that arise
jury retires to consider verdict
deliberations must be secret , jury deliver verdict in open court - unanimous and majority verdicts allowed
Judge then decides sentence
advantages of using juries in criminal cases
- public confidence
- open system of justice
- impartially and racially balanced
public confidence
- tradition of using a jury in a trial is very old, therefore people have confidence in the impartiality and fairness of juries
- Lord Devlin who was a supreme Court Judge famously said juries are “the lamp that shows that freedom lives”
- The idea of this is known as public confidence
open system of justice
- jury is made up of “normal” people, making the legal system more open and giving the public more confidence in it
- justice is seen to be done as the public play a key role in the outcome and the majority of the process is public,
- A report for the home office in 2004 found over half of those who received a summons were enthusiastic, just under a third being reluctant or very reluctant,
impartial and racially balanced
- juries aren’t connected with the case so they should be impartial and unbiased
- random selection should result in a cross section of society and twelve different viewpoints are represented so any individual prejudices should be balanced out
- research published in 2007 by the Ministry of Justice shows there are no differences between white, black and ethnic minorities in responding positively to a summons,
disadvantages of using juries in criminal cases
- secrecy of jury rooms
- perverse verdicts
- negative media influences
secrecy of jury rooms
- we do not know the reasons for each verdict, therefore there is no way of knowing if the jury understood the case and came to their verdict for the right reason
- people may reach verdicts for the wrong reasons or not take their role seriously or be influenced by other jury members
- R v Mirza confirmed courts should not enquire into jury discussions, except for two exceptions:
- If concerns are raised about the conduct of a juror, or if extraneous material is introduced to the jury room
perverse verdicts
- Juries have the ability to decide cases on their own individual merit, this can lead to perverse verdicts which is where the decision cannot be justified and is obviously wrong
- so the jury may make a decision that goes against all evidence and is legally wrong
- example - R v Kronlid and others, the D admitted to causing £1.5 million of damage to a plane, stating he was preventing it from being used in attacks against East Timor. Jury acquitted them despite their admission of guilt, going against evidence and being legally wrong
negative media influence
- Jurors should judge a case purely on what they hear in court, but media reporting of high profile cases makes it almost impossible to do so
- Ian Huntley was charged with the murder of two young girls, following his arrest the media covered his case and branded him as a “murderer” before the trial, as the case was high profile, most jurors were aware of the media reports
