Jury Flashcards
What act was amended by the Criminal Justice Act 2003
S1 Juries Act 1974
What does the S1 Juries Act 1974 outline?
Who is eligible for jury service
what does s1 juries act 1974 say about who is elgible?
-Between 18-75 years old
-UK resident for at least 5 years since 13th birthday
-Be on the electoral register
give two examples of mental disorders that would make a person unfit for jury service
psychopathic disorder
resident of an institution or hospital
what two sentences disqualifies someone for jury service
life sentences
custodial sentence over 5 yrs
what two sentences would temporarily disqualify someone from jury service
any sentence under 5 yrs
those on bail are banned for the duration of their bail
state 2 factors of a physical disability meaning people are incapable of jury service
blind
cant understand english
what does S9 Juries Act 1974 say
allows for an excusal or deferral which means that a person may be able to have jury service cancelled or deferred until a more convienient time
what are the 5 reasons someone can cancel their jury service
weddings
exams
work committments
childcare commitments
pre booked holiday
for jury selection, where are names selected from
the electoral register
what responsiblity does the central jury summoning bureau have
they sent sumomons to those whose names have been selected
for jury selection, if you have been summoned and cannot attend what must they do
notify the court
if someone cannot attend jury service and do not notify the court what happens
they get fined 1000
if your summoned for jury service how many days are you expetced to attend for
10 working days
what doe vetting mean
checking
what are two types of checks (vetting)
police checks
wider background checks
whats the purpose of police checks (vetting)
ensures no juror is disqualified
when should wider background checks take place (vetting)
only allowed in exceptional circumstances
the attorney general has to give express permission
the court clerk selects how many jurors
12 from 15 at random
prosecution and defence have the right to challenge the jury, what are the two challenges
challenge the whole jury
challenge an indiviudual juror
what is challenging the whole jury known as
challenege to array
what is challenging an indivudual juror known as
challenge for cause
why would challenge to the whole jury be done
if the jury is unrepresentative or selected in a biased way
why is challenging an individual juror done
juror may disqualified or may know someone in the case
an example of challenging the whole jury?
R v Fraser
what happened in R v Fraser
D was from an ethnic minority, jurors chosen bc they were white.
judge agreed to empanel another jury
example of challenging an individual juror
R v wilson and sprason
what happened in wilson v sprason
Convictions quashed for bias where a jury member was the wife of a prison officer who was in contact with the defendant while he was a remand prisoner
name the 4 advantages of juries
jury equity
public confidence
secrecy
no personal bias
name the 4 disadvantages of juries
modern tech
preverse decisions
secrecy
risk of bias
the jury hears what type of offences?
indictable and triable either way
how many cases are heard each year
30,000
is the jury the sole decider of the verdict?
yes, they base their decision on the evidence they hear in court
what do jurors have to take before entering court
an oath/affirmation
is the judge allowed to influence the juries decision
no even if the judge doesnt agree they must not influence the jury
what is bushells case
says the judge cant interfer with the juries decision
do the jury have to give reasons for the verdict they reach
no
the jury must listen to evidence from who
prosecution and defence
they must listen to the judges summing up at the end too
at the end of a prosecution case what can the judge direct the jury to
acquit D if there is insufficient evidence against D
whats a direct acquital
when a judge instructs the jury to find the defendant not guilty, typically due to insufficient evidence or a legal flaw in the prosecution’s case.
what percentage of cases does a direct acquital happen
10%
case example of a direct acquital?
R v Counsell
What is the contempt of court act 1981
makes it a offence to disclose the content of any discussions in the jury room with anyone outside
what is the role of a foreman/woman
control discussions in the jury room
publicly announce the verdict
what does the foreman do if the majority is a split decision
must announce the number of jurors agreeing and disagreeing with the verdict
the judge will direct the jury to reach a …… verdict
unamimous
the CJA 1967 says that after 2 hours if the jury hasnt agreed on a verdict what happens
the judge can accept a majority verdict from the jury (10-2 or 11-1)
if less than 9 jurors agree what is this called
a hung jury
what happens if its a hung jury
the judge discharges them and D faces a re trial in front of a new jur
what case did a hung jury happen
r v jenkins
name the two concerns of roles of a jury before the CJCA 2015
- easy for jurors to research defendants or other relevent details
- easy for internet research to be shared as jurors discuss in privacy
4 things
what does the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 say
-jurors hand in electronic devices before trial
-jury officer can search the jurors for devices
-criminal offence to research a case
-criminal offence for jurors to share researched info
explain the disadvnatage of preverse decisions
This could be because they are ignoring the law and basing their decision on their conscience (jury equity), or could be due to lack of understanding of the case because they are lay people with no legal training. In R v Owen, D was almost definitely guilty (of a very serious crime) but was allowed to go free because the jury felt bad for him. 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)
explain the disadvantage of secrecy
he Contempt of Court Act makes it an offence to share discussions which take place in the jury room. They also do not need to reveal any reasons for their decision (Bushel’s case). In R v Young, the jury used a Ouija board to ask V who the killer was. They then found D guilty based on this rather than any evidence in court (D’s conviction was quashed when this was discovered). The secrecy is then bad because we can’t tell if the jury are actually using the evidence to make a decision or random information/prejudice.
explain the disadvantage of modern tech
Information about cases and Ds is widely available on the internet and may even be discussed on social networking sites, but juries are only meant to o use the evidence in court under their oath/affirmation. In 2010, 12% of jurors in high profile cases admit using the internet. This was the problem in AG v Dallas and has led to the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. 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 such details may prejudice the jury.
explain the disadvnatage of bias
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. 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. This is a problem because it means justice is not being achieved and it is hard to know if people hold these biases.
explain the advantage of jury equity
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. For example, in R v Owen, D was almost certainly guilty. However 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. 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 lead to a bad decision.
explain the advantage of secrecy
The Contempt of Court Act 1981 makes it an offence to share discussions which take place in the jury room. They also do not need to reveal any reasons for their decision (Bushel’s case). Research shows that jurors do appear to discuss the evidence in detail and take the standard of proof very seriously (shown by higher acquittal rates in Crown Courts (about 60%) than Magistrates’ Courts). If discussions were to be made public, jurors may not want to be as open and honest with their thoughts and may feel pressured into a decision. Also, less people may want to serve as jurors in the first place if they will be judged for their verdict.
explain the advnatage of public confidence
This is probably because it is a ‘trial by peers’ - D is judged by ordinary members of the public rather than just one legal expert (a judge). This means the jury are representative of society making the system more democratic. A survey by the Law Society showed 80% of people would trust a jury more than a judge or magistrates. This shows support and agreement with the justice system, suggesting it actually works.
explain the advnatage of impartial
Jury members cannot know anyone involved in the case and will therefore not have any personal bias against those involved. 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. 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
if the jury dont understand the law or evidence what can they do
pass a note to an usher who then gives it to the judge
