Section B (criminal process juries)

Question 1

what are juries?

Answer 1

a jury is a body of people that are sworn to account for facts and to furnish courts of law with true and honest information. a judge must respect the the independence of jury an example would be RV Mckenna where a judge threatened the jury during trial that if they did not return with a verdict but the defendants conviction was quashed.

Question 2

qualification of juries

Answer 2

basic qualifications:
1- should be aged b/w 18 and 75 yrs
2- registered on electoral registrar
3- resident in UK for 5 years from age 13
but may be unable to sit on jury because:
1- you suffer from mental disorder- not eligible
2- disqualified if - on bail - served more than 5 years in prison - been in prison for public protection.
lack of capacity - inadequate understanding of English , disability such as blindness.
3- Excusal - full time serving members of armed forces
4- cannot serve for 10 years after serving , community order , any time in prison.

Question 3

What is the role of jury?

Answer 3

1- listen to the evidence and submissions from the barristers
2- listen to the judges summing up
3- decide the facts of the case
4- apply the law , as explained to them by the judge .
5- after the judge sums up the case they retire to the jury room , they will then have a secret discussion in order to decide a verdict , the verdict will be one of guilty or not guilty based on the facts. their decision should be agreed by all 12 jurors. eg Bushells case

Question 4

what are the advantages and disadvantages of juries?

Answer 4

1- jury equity this means juries are not legal experts however perverse decisions could be a limitation as sometimes jury could make decisions that ignore evidence and make wrong decisions e.g R V KANDLE V PORTLE CASE
2- impartiality of jury this means a jury should be impartial as they are not connected to anyone however a limitation would be radical bias this means they may still have prejudices which can affect the verdict , some jurors maybe biased against police. e.g SANDERS V UK CASE
3- open system of justice this means the whole process is public helps to keep it clearer however medias coverage may influence the verdict e.g R V VEST CASE
4- public confidence this means people have confidence in impartiality and fairness of juries however use of juries make trial slow and unpopular.