Juries

Juries

A jury in the Crown Court has 12 members. Remember that a jury will be required if the D pleads not guilty.

Qualifications / Disqualifications

The qualifications for jury service are set out in the Juries Act 1974. To qualify for jury service a person needs to be:

• Aged between 18 and 75 inclusive (the age was increased by the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015)

• Registered on the electoral register.

• A juror must have lived in the UK, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man for at least five years since the age of 13.

the Juries Act 1974

The qualifications for jury service are set out in this act

permanent disqualification

Anyone who has ever been sentenced to imprisonment or youth custody of five years or more. Or anyone who has been imprisoned for life.

10 years disqualification

• In the last 10 years they have served any prison sentence or been given a suspended prison sentence. In the last 10 years they have had a community order or other community sentence passed on them.

• Anyone who is on bail in criminal proceedings is disqualified from sitting as a juror.

• If a disqualified person fails to disclose that fact and turns up for jury service, they may be fined up to £5,000.

Ineligible

Section 1 CJA 2003 a person who is ‘mentally disordered’. Anyone who is blind, and who would be unable to see plans and photographs that were produced as evidence. Section 9B(2) of the Juries Act 1974 makes it clear that a person’s disability doesn’t automatically prevent them acting as a juror. It is only if the judge is satisfied that the disability means that juror is not capable of acting effectively as a juror. Deaf people who need to have a sign-language interpreter are not allowed to sit on a jury.

Section 1 CJA 2003

a person who is ‘mentally disordered’. Anyone who is blind, and who would be unable to see plans and photographs that were produced as evidence

Section 9B(2) of the Juries Act 1974

makes it clear that a person’s disability doesn’t automatically prevent them acting as a juror.

Discharge

A judge at the court could discharge a juror from service because they become too ill, they know parties in the case, they have been a V of a similar crime, they lack capacity to cope with the trial – this could be because they do not understand English adequately or because they have a disability.

Complete Excusals

The Criminal Justice Act 2003 abolished a range of categories for excusal and made it clear that if selected a person must do his/her jury service. Only the following can be excused completely: Those who have done jury service in the previous two years. Those who are full-time members of the armed services if their commanding officer certified their absence from duty (because of jury service) would be prejudicial to the efficiency of the service.

The Criminal Justice Act 2003

abolished a range of categories for excusal and made it clear that if selected a person must do his/her jury service.

Deferral or Discretionary Excusal

For others who are called they have to apply for deferral or discretionary excusal. This means that they ask to be excused for a period of time and be put back to a later date, usually within the next 12months. This could be for those who are too ill to attend court; about to take examinations; who are suffering from a disability; who have booked a holiday.

Before court process

• Selected centrally by the Central Summoning Bureau from the electoral register. (Random and more are sent out that are required)

• Those who have been summoned must notify the court if there is any reason why they should not or cannot attend.

• Expected to attend for two weeks jury service.

Process at court

• The jurors are usually divided into groups of 15 and allocated to a court.

• At the start of a trial the court clerk will select 12 at random by ballot in open court by the clerk will randomly read out names, the remaining three stay at the court as reserves in long or important trials.

• Once the list of potential jurors is known, both the prosecution and defence have the right to see the list.

• Checks and challenges are undertaken. Vetting includes routine police checks and, in exceptional circumstances, wider background checks for political affiliations. Permission from the Attorney General is required.

• Jury members may be challenged either to the array, for cause or told to stand by.

• to the array - This right to challenge is given by Section 5 of the JA 1974 and it is a challenge for the whole jury on the basis that it has been chosen in an unrepresentative or biased way. R v Ford the judge held that the jury had been randomly selected and couldn’t be challenged just because it was not multi-racial.

• For Cause - This is challenging the right of an individual juror to sit. To be successful there has to be a valid reason why the juror shouldn’t be allowed to serve. (may be disqualified or know someone in the case)

• Prosecution right to stand by jurors - Only prosecution can do this. It allows a juror who has been ‘stood by’ to be put to the end of the potential list of jurors, prosecution doesn’t have to give a reason. Attorney General’s guidelines make it clear it should only be used sparingly.

• Each of the final twelve jurors takes the juror’s oath on the individual juror’s chosen holy book or can “affirm”

Section 5 of the JA 1974

This right to challenge is given by this act and it is a challenge for the whole jury on the basis that it has been chosen in an unrepresentative or biased way

Role of the jury

Only required when the D pleads not guilty.

• Split function between the jury and the judge

• Judge may direct the jury to directly acquit the D if the prosecution hasn’t made their case.

• Jury listens to the evidence and the summing up by the judge, the judge will explain points of law to the jury.

• At the end of the trial the jury will retire to discuss the case in secret. they decide who should be the foreman or forewoman from among them job is to keep the discussion focused on the evidence they have heard in the courtroom

• Jurors are not allowed ever to discuss outside the jury room. If anyone does, they can be prosecuted under the Contempt of Court Act 1981. The Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 makes it a criminal offence to intentionally obtain, disclose, or solicit opinions expressed, arguments advances or votes cast by members of a jury.

• The jury will decide if the defendant is guilty or not guilty based on the facts presented to them. Judge will decide the sentence.

• Whilst a unanimous decision is preferred meaning that all of the jurors agree, a majority decision may be allowed, for example, 10-2, under the Criminal Justice Act 1967.

• Foreperson will read out the verdict in open court if the verdict is a majority. the numbers agreeing and disagreeing with the verdict. This was introduced by Section 17(3) Juries Act 1974.

• Judge must accept the decision of the jury.

• No reason for the decision is required.

Contempt of Court Act 1981.

Jurors are not allowed ever to discuss outside the jury room. If anyone does, they can be prosecuted under this act.

The Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015

makes it a criminal offence to intentionally obtain, disclose, or solicit opinions expressed, arguments advances or votes cast by members of a jury.

Criminal Justice Act 1967.

Whilst a unanimous decision is preferred meaning that all of the jurors agree, a majority decision may be allowed

Section 17(3) Juries Act 1974.

Foreperson will read out the verdict in open court if the verdict is a majority. the numbers agreeing and disagreeing with the verdict.

Advantages

• Public Confidence - The public have confidence in the jury system – the right to be tried by one’s peers. The jury is regarded as one of the fundamental indicators of a democratic system.

• Jury Equity - Jury equity is a major advantage of using juries. They are not bound by precedents or Acts of Parliament and can instead base their decisions on their own idea of fairness (Bushell’s case (1670), R v Ponting (1985), R v Kronlid and Others (1996)

• Open System of Justice - The jury is selected at random from the electoral role. A representative sample of local area will be selected. This promotes diversity amongst the jury. An advantage of using a jury is that the selection process gives the ordinary person the opportunity to take part in the administration of justice and as such provides an open system of justice. Justice is seen to be done.

• Secrecy of the Jury Room - When jurors retire to discuss the case and reach a verdict they do so in secret. This means that jurors are protected from outside pressures. They are free to bring verdicts that may be unpopular with the public and which they may not be so willing to reach if deliberations were in open court.

• Impartiality - A jury should be impartial and not connected to anyone in the case. The process of random selection should also result in a cross-section of society and this should also lead to an impartial jury, as they will have different prejudices and so should cancel out each other’s bias. No one individual is responsible for the decision. A jury is also not case hardened since they only sit for only two weeks and are unlikely to try more than one than three or four cases at a time.

• No Qualifications - Most members of the jury will have no legal qualifications. This means that legal personnel are required to explain matters simply and clearly for the jury. This also means that the defendant is better able to follow the proceedings and they become more accessible to the public.

Disadvantages

• Perverse Decisions - Public confidence in juries may be lost due to perverse decisions i.e., when a decision does

not appear to be justified. R v Owen (1992), R v Ponting (1985), R v Kronlid and Others

• Secrecy - Secrecy of jury decision making. There is no way of knowing whether the decision has been reached fairly or how the decision was reached. R v Mirza (2004), R v Connor and Rollock (2004) R v Young (1995) R v Karakaya (2005)

• Jurors and the internet - Judges direct jurors not to look at the internet for information, but internet research by jurors has become more common. In Cheryl Thomas’ research. Are Juries Fair (2010), she found that 12% of jurors admitted they had looked on the internet for information about the cases that they were trying. Such information may be prejudicial to the D. HM Attorney General v Fraill (2011) Attorney General v Dallas (2012) Attorney General v Beard and ANR (2013)

• Lack of Understanding - Jury members lack legal qualifications. Lay people make the decision rather than a legally qualified person. In some complex cases jurors may have difficulty understanding cases. R v Pryce (2013). The jury does not need to give a reason for the decision reached making difficult for the defendant to appeal and there is no way of knowing how the decision was reached

• Juries are not representative of society - Selection using the electoral register may result in an unrepresentative panel. There is an argument that a jury is not fully representative of society, in that younger people (particularly younger males) are more likely to have criminal convictions and therefore more likely to be barred from jury service. Also, mothers of younger children often defer their service.

• Media - Difficult to know if the jury has been influenced by outside sources, for example, different types of media and in particular the use of social media. Can be difficult to find someone who doesn’t know about the case especially if it is a high profile case. R v West (1995) R v Taylor and Taylor (1993)

• Jury nobbling or tampering - Difficult to know if the jury has been influenced by outside sources. This was recognised by In the Criminal Justice Act 2003. May put people off wanting to complete jury service, may be too scared to come forward. However, Section 44 of this Act allows the prosecution to apply for the trial to be heard by a judge. R v Twomey and Others (2009) KS v R (2010)

• Bias - Although jurors have no direct interest in a case, and despite the fact there are 12 of them, they may still have prejudices that affect the verdict. Some jurors may be biased against the police. There is also a worry that some jurors may be racially prejudiced. Sander v UK (2000)

• Other disadvantages - High acquittal rates, Twelve people in one room might be considered too many to allow for productive discussion, Jury trial is time consuming and costly to the state, The compulsory nature of jury service makes it unpopular. To some it is an inconvenience, Effect of Jury service on people