Juries Flashcards
Issue: public confidence in Juries (Adv)
Cause:
- Trial by peers: D is judged by ordinary members of public rather than just one legal expert (a judge)
- Jury are representative of society & D – very democratic
Example:
- Survey by Law Society – 80% of those asked would trust a jury more than a judge or magistrates
Consequence:
- Shows support and agreement with the justice system, suggesting it actually works.
Issue: Jury Equity (Adv)
Cause:
- Equity means ‘fairness’- jurors can decide verdict according to what they think is morally right and wrong, they do not have to follow the law if they think it is unfair.
Example:
- R v Owen – The jury sympathised with D’s situation and felt he had been punished enough already, so found him not guilty despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Consequence:
- This is good because juries can make fair/just decisions based on their conscience, whereas a judge would have to apply the law even if it leads to a bad decision.
Issue: Impartiality (Adv)
Cause:
- Jury members cannot know anyone involved in the case and will therefore not have any personal bias against those involved.
Example:
- For example, in R v Wilson and Sprason, the wife of the prison officer overseeing D was not allowed to sit on the jury for fear this may create bias.
Consequence:
- This should ensure that the decision is based purely on the evidence in court,and that justice is actually achieved in the way we want.
Issue: Influence of modern
technology (Dis)
Cause:
- information about cases and Ds is widely available on the internet and may even be discussed on social networking sites.
Example:
- In 2010,12% jurors in high profile cases admitted to using the internet. This was the problem in AG v Dallas and has led to the Criminal Courts and Justice Act 2015.
Consequence:
- It is hard to stop the jury using the internet at home (even with the new Act) and not all info online is reliable, meaning details on the internet about the case may prejudice the jury and this goes against their oath/affirmation.
Issue: ‘Perverse’ decisions (Dis)
Cause:
-Juries can lead to perverse decisions, this may be because they are ignoring the law or evidence and just basing their decisions on their moral opinions or it is because of a lack of understanding of the case because of their lack of legal training as lay people
Example:
- R v Owen – D was definitely guilty (of a very serious crime) but was allowed to go free because the jury felt bad for him
Consequence:
- Surely this defeats the point of the law if the jury can just ignore it whenever they want! It also denies D the right to a fair trial (which is a human right).
Issue: Risk of bias (Dis)
Cause:
- This may be because some people find certain jobs more or less honest (ie a priest compared to a salesman), or have prejudice against other races.
Example:
- In Sander v UK, it was shown that members of a jury were making openly racist remarks and jokes about the defendant in their trial, and it was held this went against D’s right to a fair trial.
Consequence:
- This is a problem because it means justice is not being achieved and it is hard to know if people hold these biases.
What are all of the adv and disadv?
Adv:
- Jury Equity
- Jury Confidence
- Impartiality
Disadv:
- influence of modern technology
- Perverse decisions
- Risk of Bias
