Juries-Ad & Dis

Question 1

Advantage 1?

Answer 1

-Public confidence

Cause: trial by peers - D is judged by ordinary members of public rather than a legal expert. They are representative of society and makes this democratic.

Example: survey by Law Society - 80% of those asked would trust a jury more than a judge or Magistrates

Consequence: shows a support and agreement with the justice system, suggesting it actually works.

Question 2

Advantage 2?

Answer 2

-Jury equity

Cause: equity means ‘fairness’ - jurors can decide verdict based on what they think is morally right and wrong. They don’t have to follow the law if they think it is unfair.

Example: R v Owen - jury sympathised with D’s situation and felt he’d been punished enough so found him not guilty despite overwhelming evidence.

Consequence: juries can make fair/just decisions based on their conscience, whereas judge could have to apply the law.

Question 3

Advantage 3?

Answer 3

-Secrecy

Cause: Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 makes it an offence to share discussions which take place in the jury room. They also do not need to reveal reasons (Bushell’s case)

Example: research shows that jurors do appear to discuss evidence in detail and take standard of proof seriously (shown by higher acquittal rates in crown courts).

Consequence: if discussions were to be made public, jurors may not want to be as open and honest with their thoughts. Also, less people may want to be jurors in the first place if they are being judged on their verdict.

Question 4

Disadvantage 1?

Answer 4

-Influence of modern technology

Cause : information about cases and D’s is widely available on the internet

Example: in 2010, 12% jurors in high profile cases admitted using internet. AG v Courts and Justice Act 2015.

Consequence: it is hard to stop the jury using the internet at home and not all info online is reliable. Can be prejudice. Goes against oath/affirmation

Question 5

Disadvantage 2?

Answer 5

-Perverse decisions

Cause: could be because they are ignoring the evidence and basing their decision on their conscience, or they do not understand the case without legal training.

Example: R v Owen - D was definitely guilty but was allowed to go free because the jury felt bad.

Consequence: surely this defeats the point of the law if it can be ignored. Denies D the right to a fair trial.

Question 6

Disadvantage 3?

Answer 6

-Secrecy

Cause: Contempt of Courts Act makes it an offence to share discussions which take place in the jury room - they also do not need to reveal any reasoning.

Example: R v Young - the jury use a Ouija board to ask V who the killer was. They found D guilty on this rather than any evidence in court. D’s conviction quashed.

Consequence: we can’t tell if the jury are actually using the evidence to make a discussion to random information/prejudice.