✔️Juries 12 markers✅

What’s the first paragraph of advantages of having juries? (maintain confidence)

Juries maintain confidence in the legal system.

Juries have been used for over 1000 years in the English legal system and are well supported by the public. Lord Devlin said that “they are the lamp that shows that freedom lives” suggesting that for a D to be tried by their peers is more beneficial compared to the alternative of having a single judge or three lay magistrates. Jurors have no connection to the D so have no loyalty and can fairly reach his decision based on fact. They only typically serve two weeks on jury service and unlike the judge and magistrates are unlikely to become casehardened during this period. This is good as it means they’re more likely to listen carefully and not be biased in reaching a verdict (basing/comparing it on years worth of previous cases).

Research conducted by the Home Office in 2004 entitled ‘jurors perceptions’ have a very positive response to jury service where 66% of jurors stated that their jury service had actually boosted their confidence in the jury system. Further Government research in 2009 found 69% of the public agreed that the jury trial is important and should be kept in its current form.

what are the 4 strengths of the jury?

• maintains confidence in legal system

• fair/ balanced in decision making

• representative of society

• simplified legal process

What’s the 2nd paragraph of advantages of having juries? (fair/balanced in decision making)

Having 12 different POV can only be beneficial and ultimately doesn’t lead to 1 person solely having the power to decide. It allowed for compromise and discussion and removes potential bias.

Fairness is provided as a result of the weight of numbers, if all 12 jurors reach the same decision, or even the majority, then it is likely the correct outcome has been achieved. If one judge was used then, as the power is vested in one person alone then there is the risk of prejudicial views influencing a verdict (thus risk is removed with juries).

What’s the 3rd paragraph of advantages of having juries? (representative of society)

In addition, juries are chosen at random by JCSB from the electoral register which ensures there is a broad mix of people, if there isn’t, the prosecution or defence can challenge the jury to the array, for the cause or stand by for the crown. This is an advantage as it means there is a wide cross-section of jurors who are representative of society from all walks of like. A mix of gender, age, ethnicity, occupation etc ensures that jurors have different opinions and a fair trial takes place. A survey of 84 courts showed that in 81 of them of them black and ethnic minority jurors were not under-represented. The study also showed that juries reflected the local population.

Beneficial as having a jury that is representative of society ensures that decisions reflect community values and standards rather than the perspectives of a single legal professional.

What’s the 4th paragraph of advantages of having juries? (legal process simple)

A Judge must first ask the jury for unanimous verdict. The prosecution and defence therefore needs to convince all 12 members of the jury that their case is the correct one. As a result the case proceeds at the speed of the slowest jurer. Lawyers must avoid speaking in legal terms which the jury wont understand. If the jury is able to understand the case presented to them, it’s reasonable to assume that the D would also be able to understand the proceedings. The process also allows for the general public to see firsthand how the courts work, boosting confidence in the overall administration of justice.

4 weaknesses of juries?

• inconsistent and unreliable

• secrecy of the jury

• media influence

• juries are acquittal minded

What’s the 1st paragraph of disadvantages of having juries? (inconsistent and unreliable)

The subjective nature of juries mean that different jury panels could reach different decisions and could arguably lead to D not receiving a fair trial. Since you have no legal training or expertise, they may also make decisions without proper consideration of the legal impact. They can ignore evidence and reach perverse decisions which are wrong in law.

The detrimental effects of this can be seen in R v Young where the jury found D guilty of murder based on ‘contacting’ the V by ouija board while drunk. In R v Owens the jury found D not guilty of attempted murder because they sympathised with his reasons of trying to kill V. These are decisions which completely contradict the law and undermine confidence in the legal system.

What’s the 2nd paragraph of disadvantages of having juries? (secrecy of jury system)

The Contempt of Court Act 1981 makes it a criminal offence for jurors to discuss the process by which they reach their verdict. As a result, potential problems with juries such as not being able to understand a judges discretion will not be identified. it will never be certain whether Jurors are actually fulfilling their role or not. They don’t need to give reasons for their verdict or explain why they reached particular verdict.

In the case of R v Mirza, the HL ruled that there could not be enquiries into discussion taken place in the jury room even though a juror had stated that from the start of the case the other jurors thought that the use of the interpreter was a ‘ploy’

What’s the 3rd paragraph of disadvantages of having juries? (media influence)

on the other hand, coverage of high profile cases by the media may influence a jury decision. The cases will have likely been reported in the media for a considerable amount of time before the case even comes to court. this makes it hard for the jury to only use evidence presented in the case as they do not have the professional training to resist such influences.

For example, in the case of R v West the first killing happened in 1967 with west only being charged in 1994. Throughout this period local and national newspapers reported on missing persons related to the case and clearly the jury risk being influenced by this press coverage. West tried to argue that this in itself denied her rights to a fair trial in front of the jury but the COA held that correct directions by the judge to the jury would ensure fairness prevailed

What’s the 4th paragraph of disadvantages of having juries? (Juries are acquittal minded)

The standard of proof in criminal trials is beyond reasonable doubt and so very high meaning that if the jury has any doubt then they should find the D not guilty. Perhaps due to a lack of legal experience and the worry of convicting an innocent person, Ds are more likely to be acquitted. Typically, jury acquit 60% of Ds compared with only 20% acquitted in the magistrates court. In the interest of justice it’s better to be cautious and find D not guilty than taking innocent person’s freedom, but the downside could be a guilty person acquitted and released back into society simply because of a very convincing defence barrister.

In contrast, the vast majority of acquittal in the Crown Court are the result of the judge stopping the trial due to insufficient evidence being presented by the prosecution so this statistic is misleading.