a level law ocr juries cases

Bushell's Case 1670

Established the right of a jury to be free from judicial coercion.

R v McKenna (1960)

demonstrating that judges must respect the independence of the jury

what is the use of a jury in the crown court

they decide whether the defendant guilty or not guilty. however account for about 2%

what are the basic qualification to by a jury member

aged between 18 and 75 years old

registered as a parliamentary or local government elector

ordinarily resident in the uk, the Channel Islands or the isle of man for a least 5 years since their 13th birthday

what are the disqualification for being a jury member

imprisonment for life, detention for life or custody for life.

detected during him pleasure.

imprisonment or detonation for public protection

an extended sentence.

a term of imprisonment or detention of five years or more.

BELOW ARE ONLY FOR 10 YEARS

serve a sentence of imprisonment

had a suspended sentence passed on them

had a community order or other community sentence passed on them.

people that can't be juror because role or illness or could be excused

MENTAL ILLNESS/ DISABILITY

those who are mental illness or handicap

a person who is under guardianship under section 7

a person who has been determined by a judge to be incapable of administering his property and affair

deaf juror- as they need a sign language interpreter.

ROLES

someone who are involved in the administration of justice e.g://

judge

police

lawyers ect

EXCUSED JURY SERVICE

full-time serving member of the forces.

illness or suffering from a disability.

being a mother with a small baby

business appointment that cannot be undertaken by anyone else.

examinations

pre book holiday

lack of capacity e.g.://

not first language

blind

someone with a disability which makes him unsuitable as a juror.

Selection of Jury

Jurors are selected at random from computerised lists of the electoral registers for each area.

vetting process

To investigate whether a person is fit to hold a position ahead of time with either a police check or wider background checks

R v Crown court, ex parte Brownlow (1980)

the defendant was a police offer and the defence sought permission to vet the jury panel for conviction. the judge gave permission but the court of appeal, while holding that they had no power to interfere, said that vetting was 'unconstitutional' and a 'serious invasion or privacy' and not sanctioned by the juries act 1974

R v Mason (1980)

where it was revealed that the chief constable for Northampton had been allowing widespread use authorised vetting of criminal records

'ABC' trial 1978

where two journalists and a soldier were charged with collecting secret information. It was discovered that the jury had been vetted for their locality. the trail stopped and went for trial.

what are the three challenging factors

to the array- a challenge to the whole jury on the basis it has been chosen in an unrepresentative way.

for cause-the right of an individual juror to sit on the jury. to be successful the challenge must point out valid reason why that juror should not serve on the jury

prosecution right to stand by jurors- this is a right that the prosecution can exercise. it allows the juror, so that he will not be used in the jury unless there are not have to give a reason for 'standing by'

R v Ford (1989)

when it was held that if was held that if the jury was chosen in a random manner then if then it could not be challenged simply because it was not multi-racial.

what is the role of the jury criminal cases?

1. Hearing evidence

2. evaluating credibility

3. determine facts

4. deliberating in private

5. reaching a verdict

6. appoint a foreperson

7. staying neutral

what are the advantages of jury trials

public confidence

jury equity

open system of justice

secrecy of the jury room

impartiality

Ponting's Case

a civil servant was charged under the old wide ranging s2 of the official secrets act 1911. he had leaked information on the sinking of the ship. at the trial he pleaded not guilty, claiming that his action had been in the public interest. the jury refused to convict him even though the judge ruled there was no defence

disadvantage of jury trial

perverse decisions

secrecy

exceptions

juror and the internet

racial bias

media

lack of understanding

fraud trials

jury tempering

high acquittal rate

R v Randle and Pottle (1991)

he defendant were charged with helping a spy to escape from prison and flee to Russia. their prosecution did not occur until 25 years after, when they wrote about what they had done. jury acquitted

IGNORES THE EVIDENCE AND GIVES A WRONG DECISION

R v Kronlid and others (1996)

the defendant were doing good in the yes of the defendants

THERE WAS CLEAR EVIDENCE WAS CLEAR

Rv Mirza (2004)

the defendant was Pakistani who had an interpreter to help him in the trial. during the trail the jury sent notes asking why he needed an interpreter. he was convicted. six days later jury verdict, one juror wrote to the defendant's counsel alleging that from the start there had been a 'theory' that the use of the interpreter was a 'ploy'

R v Connor and Rollock

a juror wrote to the crown court stating that while many jurors thought it was one or other of the defendants who had committed the stabbing, hey should convict both to 'teach them a lesson'

R v Young (1995)

4 juror used a ouija board to make a decision

R v Karakaya (2005)

the defendant was accused pf rape. a juror did an internet search at home and brought into the jury room the printed-out research. the trial was acquitted because of outside information

Sander v UK (2000)

one juror had written a note to the judge raising concern over the fact that other jurors had been making openly racist remarks

R v Taylor and Taylor (1993)

two sister were charged with murder, some newspapers published photos which gave a false impression of what was happening. after the jury had convicted the sister, the judge gave leave to appeal because of the possible influence the picture could have had on the jury's verdict and the court of appeal quashed the conviction

R v Twomey and others (2009)

the defendant were charge with various offences connected to a large robbery from a warehouse at Heathrow. three previous trail had collapsed and there had been a 'serious attempt at jury tampering in the last of these. the prosecution applied to a single judge for the trail to take place without a jury.

KS v R (2010)

jurors and member of the public who wished to smoke during breaks were directed to the same area