Legal System:Lay magistrates Flashcards
Lay Magistrates: Qualification
(HINT: MCGUSS)
- no legal qualifications but characteristics
- Maturity and sound temperament
- commitment & reliability
- good character
- understanding & communication
- social awareness
- sound judgement
- age: 18-74
- 26 half days each yr (commitment)
- no serious criminal conviction
- no conflict pf interest (i.e police officer)
- no condition interfere with their duties
- live/work within the local justice area
- prepared to sit at least 26 half days per year
Lay Magistrates: selection and appointment
- Local Advisory Committee (LAC) recruit new magistrates.
- Advertisement - aim is to select a good crosssection of society
- those selected undertake two interviews:
o Interview One looks at the candidate’s
general character, personal attributes and
whether they possess the six key qualities (MCGUSS)
o Interview Two assesses the candidate’s
judicial aptitude and qualitie - Appointment
- LAC submit names of suitable candidates to the Senior Presiding
Judge for England and Wales (Crime and Courts Act 2013). - Candidates appear in court and swear the oath of allegiance.
- Once appointed, magistrates may continue to sit until aged 75.
Lay Magistrates: role in criminal cases
- Lay magistrates try approximately 97% of all criminal
cases - They undertake Early Administrative Hearings, which
may include:
o remand hearings
o bail applications
o committal proceedings. - They deal with summary matters from start to finish
- They deal with plea before venue and mode of trial
hearings in respect of triable-either-way matters - They issue both search and arrest warrants
- They allow extensions to custody time
- Specially trained panels of magistrates deal with young
offenders aged 10–17 years in Youth Court - They sit with a judge in the Crown Court to hear appeals
from the Magistrates’ Court.
Jury selection
- Selection is random and undertaken by the Jury Central
Summoning Bureau from the electoral registers for a court area - Summons are sent out electronically and the person has 7 days to
respond - Juries Act 1974 (as amended) states those eligible to serve on a
jury must be:
o Aged between 18-75
o Registered on parliamentary or local government electoral
role
o Resident of the UK, Channel Islands or Isle of Man for at
least five consecutive years - Some people might be selected but will be ineligible to serve, for
example:
o disqualified - on bail
o ineligible – mentally disordered or lack of capacity
o excused – Armed Forces
o discretionary – exam, pregnancy - A court official will select fifteen people at random from the jury
pool to go into the courtroom. A larger number will be selected at
this point if the trial is expected to last longer than two weeks as
some may not be able to take an extended period from work - Of those fifteen, twelve will be randomly chosen to hear the case
- The remaining three stay at the court as reserves in long or
important trials
Two types of vetting may be undertaken during selection:
o Routine criminal record check
o In cases of national security, a wider background check
may be undertaken subject to Attorney Generals’s guidelines - Three types of challenges may take place during the selection
period:
For cause – individual challenged available to both the
prosecution and the defence
o To the array – whole jury challenged available to both the
prosecution and the defence
o Prosecution right to stand by an individual juror
Jury qualification
- 18-75
- on electoral register
- resident in UK for 5 yrs since 13
Disqualification
- permanently -> life sentence, detention during His majesty’s pleasure, imprisoned for public protection, extended sentence, sentence of 5+ yrs
- temp
-> 10 yrs -> sentence less than 5 yrs, a suspended sentence/community order
-> whilst on bail/mentally disordered
discharges -> issued by judge -> juror lack of capacity i.e lack of English understanding
excused -> armed forces -> letter from commanding officer -> prejudicial to efficiency of service
-deferred -> vry difficult i.e exams/pregnancy -> more convenient time (court discretion)
role of juries in criminal cases
A jury is used in about 20,000 Crown Court trials each year –
approximately 1% of criminal cases.
* The jury decides whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty in
indictable offences and some either way offences (where D pleads
not guilty).
* They listen to the evidence and the summing up by the judge. The
role of the jury is to bring the lay person’s viewpoint to the case.
* They decide questions of fact, the judge will advise them on points of
law. (They will be given strict instructions only to decide the case on
the facts given and not taking account of anything read in the papers
on the internet or information sent on social media, as this would be
a criminal offence.)
* At the end of the trial they retire to the jury room to discuss the case
in private. Jury independence is a key principle which is fundamental
to the rule of law.
* They should come to a unanimous decision if possible, or a majority
decision of at least 10-2 if necessary.
* Juries do not have to give any reasons for their decisions.
advantages of juries
public confidence -
regarded as one of the fundamental indicators of a democratic system,
“a safeguard against oppression and dictatorship” (Lord Judge)
Not just the state charging, convicting and sentencing - the right to
be tried by one’s peers. .
✓ Jury equity – disagree with a particular law & apply their
own idea of fairness as they do not need to give reasons for their
decisions. See Ponting’s Case (1984) for an example. Juries almost
always reach a verdict and convict roughly two thirds of the time.
✓ Open system of justice – Allows the ordinary person to take part in the
administration of justice and helps citizens feel empowered. Justice is
seen to be done. Lawyers have to explain matters simply and clearly for
the jury so the defendant is better able to follow the proceedings and
they become more accessible to the public.
✓ Secrecy of the jury room – The jury is free from pressure in its
discussion and can ignore the strict letter of the law. This important
principle is demonstrated by Bushell’s Case (1670).
✓ Impartiality – Juries are not connected with anyone involved in the
case. They sit for 2 weeks then disband, so are not case-hardened.
Random selection should result in a cross-section of society. Twelve
people will cancel out each other’s prejudices. Legal expertise is not
required to decide questions of fact. Research suggests all-white juries
do not discriminate against defendants from black and minority ethnic
backgrounds.
- selected at random from the electoral role. A
representative sample of local area will be selected. This
promotes diversity amongst the jury.
Disadv juries
✗ Perverse decisions. Juries are able to ignore laws that they feel are
unjust and this creates uncertainty. Often the decisions do not appear
justified even when the case is clear-cut, e.g. the controversy
surrounding the acquittal of the ‘Colston Four’ or Kronlid (1996).
✗ Secrecy. The jury does not need to give a reason for the decision
reached which makes it difficult for the defendant to appeal and there is
no way of knowing how the decision was reached and whether the case
was understood (see e.g. Mirza (2004), Young (1985) and Karakaya
(2005), all of which involved allegations of juror misconduct).
✗ Media influence – It is sometimes difficult for juries to remain
independent and free from influence, especially in high profile cases
where there has been a lot of publicity about police investigations into a
case, e.g. Taylor Sisters (1993).
✗ Lack of understanding – Jury members lack legal qualifications. No
minimum educational standards are required. Research shows doubts
about 5% of jury convictions. 12 people may be too many for productive
discussion. A small number of jurors admit having difficulty
understanding cases and although it is only a small number of people it
is concerning when in criminal matters it may be a person’s liberty at
stake. Juries have been removed from most fraud cases in criminal law
due to the complex nature of the evidence.
✗ Expensive – Jury trial is both time consuming and costly. Because
juries are lay people everything needs to be explained to them. There
are also times when the jury has to leave the court in order that legal
argument may take place. All this adds to the length of the trial. This in
turn adds to the cost. It would be quicker and cheaper if it were one
judge. Also, some jurors find that they are not able to claim back from
the court their full wages therefore losing money.
✗ Jury tampering – Sometimes jury members may be bribed or
threatened, so the prosecution can apply for a trial without a jury, e.g.
Twomey (2009); KS v R (2010).
✗ Bias – In some cases there has been racial bias, e.g. Sander (2000).
