Jury trial Flashcards

Question

What case suggested that the vetting of criminal records was "common sense"?

Answer 1

Mason Widespread vetting of criminal records occurred and the CA agreed it was necessary to ensure that a disqualified person could not serve

Answer 2

A wider check into someones background act as a further safeguard However, after Aubrey, Berry and Campbell case where there was widespread unauthorised background checks the AG published guidelines on when background checks were permissible

Answer 3

exceptional circumstances such as cases involving terrorism or national security

Answer 4

1) challenge to the array (under S.5 Juries Act 1974) (Prosecution and Defence) -entire jury to be challenged on the basis that it is unrepresentative or bias, however this is controversial as the selection process is entirely random so it often cannot be helped if it is not "representative" e.g In Fraser the judge empanelled a new jury because D was an ethnic minority and the jury was all white e.g However in Ford it was held that if a jury was selected in the proper random manner it cannot be challenged simply becuase it was not multi-racial 2) Challenge for cause (Prosecution and defence) -Individual juror, if a juror's participation could risk the safety of any conviction they may challenge on the grounds of: -Disqualified -Jurors bias -Juror knowns anyone in the trial e.g Wilson A juror was a wife of a prison officer who worked in the prison where D was being held. She asked to be removed, but the judge refused. Ds were convicted and appealed. CA stated she should have been removed therefore convictions quashed. 3) Stand by (Prosecution only) -individual juror may be asked to "stand by for the crown" meaning they are put on the end of the list not to be used unless there are not enough jurors. Ag's guidelines stress this should be used sparingly in cases of national security or terrorism

Answer 5

A judge can discharge a individual or jury to prevent the perversion of justice this is particularly important where there is a risk of racism: e.g Gregory "you decide this case on evidence..... allowing no other factors to influence your decision" Judges can also be discharged because of the inability to perform their role: e.g Pryce This over wife taking points on licence for ex-husband. The jury had a complete misunderstanding of their role and asked can a juror come to verdict based on a reason not presented in court and has no facts to support it.

Answer 6

1) crown court 2) high court, KBD 3) County court 4) Coroner's court

Answer 7

Less than 1% of cases High court (s.69 Supreme Court Act 1981) County court (s.66 County Courts Act 1984) When used they perform a dual rule, if D is liable and the quantum of damages -Claimants can request a jury but it is at the courts discretion e.g juries have not been used in personal injury cases since Ward when Lord Denning said that owing to their technical nature exceptional circumstances are required e.g Jury trial was removed from defamation caused by S.11 Defamation Act 2013

Answer 8

Juries are only requested when deaths have occurred: -in prison/ custody -industrial accident -following the act or omission of a police officer -health and safety of public is involved e.g Hillsborough disaster = trial for gross negligence

Answer 9

Juries are required in about 1% of criminal cases there role is: -listen to the evidence presented -listen to witnesses and judge credibility -examine the evidence -listen to judicial summing up They then retire and decide either Guilty Not guilty (acquittals are now subject to double jeopardy exception under S.75 criminal Justice act 2003)

Answer 10

Trials with a judge alone (under S.44 CJA 2003) first use in: Twomey Ds were charged with multiple offences connected to a robbery, three previous trials had collapsed due to "serious attempts of jury tampering". Ca permitted the trial by judge alone The justification for such action has been explained in JSM "the principle of trial by jury is precious but any D who is responsible for abusing the principle has no justified complaint that he has been deprived of a right which, by his own actions, he himself has spurned"

Answer 11

judge- arbiter of law jury- arbiter of fact At the end of the prosecutions case, the judge could "direct an acquittal", this occurs in 10% of cases However, where the trial continues as normal the judge will sum up the case, direct the jury as to the law involved and then allows them to retire to determine the verdict

Answer 12

Initially jurors are directed to reach a unanimous verdict, the jury do not give any reason for their verdict. Under S.17 Juries Act 1974 a majority verdict can no be accepted, around 20% of convictions are reached via this method e.g 12 person 10:2 11 person 10:1 10 person 9:1 9 person jury: unanimous -a majority verdict will only be accepted after a reasonable period of deliberation this was introduced to prevent jury nobbling Similarly a juror could have extreme views known as a "hung jury" which happens in only 0.06% of cases However, it has been suggested in Freeman that majority verdicts dilute the concept of Beyond reasonable doubt

Answer 13

Once jurors retire they are not allowed to communicate with anyone other than the fellow jurors, the judge and an assigned court official Jury secrecy rules were originally introduced to prevent jurors "selling their story"

Answer 14

D was a Pakistani who had an interpreter to help during the trial. He was convicted but days later a juror wrote to Ds legal team expressing concerns over how the verdict was reached, however nothing could be done due to secrecy laws. This promoted a practise direction (crown court: guidance to jurors) to ensure that jurors go to the judge and alert about any concerns

Answer 15

D was charged with the murder of 2 people and the jury had to stay overnight in a hotel as they had not reached a verdict. That night jurors used a ouijia board to contact the dead, the next day they returned a guilty verdict. When the use of the ouijia board became known D convicted quashed and CA ordered a re-trial. Following re-trial D was convicted

Answer 16

Jurors left evidence of internet research in the deliberating room, leading to the successful appeal against conviction in a rape case. D was acquitted at the re-trial

Answer 17

Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 add several offences relating to intentionally disclosing information or researching a case online

Answer 18

s.20(A) and S.20 (B) make it an offence for jurors to research a case and share it with other jurors S.20 (C) creates an offence when jury member intentionally engages in prohibited conduct S.20 (D) creates an offence for a juror to disclose information about statements made, opinions expressed and votes casted during jury deliberation Anyone with a conviction relating to the above will be disqualified for future jury service for 10 years

Answer 19

D, a university lecturer, was sentenced to 6 months for informing other jurors about her internet research