Topic 4: Lay people - Lay Magistrates and Juries

Who are Lay Magistrates?

• Known as the Justices of the Peace

• They are unpaid, part-time ‘judges’ who volunteer for the position having undergone an application and interview process

• They have no legal qualifications and hear cases in the Magistrates’ Court

• There are usually 3 lay magistrates who sit on a bench and hear around 1 million criminal cases a year

Eligibility criteria for lay magistrates

• Aged between 18-65

• Expected to live or work within, or near, their local justice area

• Be able to work on a voluntary basis for at least 13 days a year

• Possess certain judicial qualities e.g. understand factual information and make a reasoned decision based on this

Ineligibility criteria for lay magistrates

• Having serious criminal convictions

• Their job e.g police officer or a traffic warden

• Having relatives already working in the criminal justice system

Appointment and training

• Candidates who apply will go through a two-stage interview process which assesses their personal qualities and their ability to make reasoned judgements

• One appointed, they will undertake intial training for up to a yaer which will consist of being assigned a mentor, being observed etc. and will continue to have training throughout their role to maintain competency and to stay well informed about updates to legislation and court procedures

Key roles of Lay Magistrates

Cases they hear:

• Hear all summary offences, some triable either-way offences if within their powers

• Cannot hear indictable offences (Crown Court)

Preliminary matters (starting tasks):

• Hear applications for bail which they can refuse or grant, applications for legal aid, requests for arrest and search warrants

Decision making:

• Decide on the verdict in a case - a defendant’s guilt must be proved ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’ based on the prosecution and defence arguments, the evidence, the facts and law

• Assisted on the law by a qualified legal adivser who cannot help with decision making

• If the decision is not unanimous, the bench make a majority decision

Sentencing:

• Can sentence up to 6 months imprisonment and/or unlimited fine

• Can send the case to Crown Court for sentencing if they decide they have insufficient sentencing powers to refelct the seriousness of the offence

Other roles:

• 2 magistrates can sit with a judge to hear appeals in the Crown Court from the Magistrates Court against conviction and/or sentence

• With further specialist training, they can sit in the youth court and hear criminal cases where the offender is between 10-17 years old

What are Juries?

• Juries are a group of ordinary citizens chosen to listen to evidence in a court case and decide the facts to reach a verdict of guilty or not guilty

• Have been used in the legal system for over 1000 years

• The Magna Carta included the recognition of a person’s right to trial by ‘the lawful judgement of his peers’

• Most important use of juries is in the Crown Court where they decide if a defendant is guilty or not

Eligibility criteria for a juror

Juries Act states:

• Aged 18-75

• On the electoral register

• Resident in the UK

People involved in the administration of justice are now eligible to serve under the Criminal Justice Act. This includes police officers, judges and lawyers

Ineligibility criteria for a juror

• A person may be disqualified from jury service for reasons such as having previous criminal convictions, being on bail or due to lack of mental capacity to serve on trial

• A person who has been sent a summons to do jury servive can ask to defer the jury service to a later date. This may be granted for reasons such as pre-booked holidays or being ill. Failure to attend for jury service can result in a fine of up to £1000

General roles of the jury

• Only decide cases in the Crown Court

• They hear some triable either way offences and all indictable offences (robbery, ABH, murder)

• The listen to the evidence, facts and witnesses including cross examination of witnesses (when prosecution questions the defendant’s witnesses or vice versa)

• They can make notes during the trial

• They decide on the verdict of the trial

• They do not have any sentencing powers - the judge will determine the sentence once the jury makes a decision

Key role of the jury - decision-making process

• Before deliberating, the jury hears the judge’s summary of the case, relevant law, and both sides’ evidence and arguments

• They make decisions in the jury deliberation room and apoint the chairman (foreperson)

• Jurors consider the evidence and decide whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty. If they have questions, they send a note to the judge through the usher

• The jury should aim for a unanimous verdict (all 12 agree). If the judge permits, a majority verdict of 10-2 or 11-1 may be accepted

• If the jury cannot reach an acceptable verdict, it is a hung jury and a retrial may be held

• The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt

• The foreperson announces the verdict in court, then the jury is discharged

Jury Secrecy

• Jurors must keep their deliberations a secret (if it’s high profile, jury can be influenced by social media easily)

• The Criminal Justice and Courts Act makes it an offence to research information about a case or defendant during a trial and share that information with other jurors. Such acts are jury misconduct (people do not know if you break this rule a lot of the time - flawed system)

Jury Secrecy case example - Attorney General v Dallas

• Dallas (a juror) was sentenced to 6 months in prison for contempt of court after conducting outside internet research (found allegations of rape) about a defendant and sharing it with other jurors

• Trial was aborted and new jury was used

Advantages of a jury trial

• Public confidence in jury trials and open system of justice: Juries involve ordinary members of the public in the justice system, increasing public trust and confidence. In a survey commissioned by the Bar Council and Law Society, they found 80% of the public have more confidence in being tried by their peers than judges.

• Fairness: having 12 jurors reduces the risk of one person's personal bias influencing the verdict. They can also reach a decision based on their conscience rather than just the law (lay equity). In R v Ponting the defendant was clearly guilty for leaking State secrets but such leak was in the public interest. Jury refused to convict.

• Independence: juries are independent from the government and judiciary, helping prevent political influence over verdicts.

Disadvantages of a jury trial

• Perverse verdicts: the jury may make a decision which is not in accordance with the law, but rather a refelction of their own views of what is fair

• Media influence: jurors may be influenced by pre-trial publicity or information they find online (Dallas), potentially affecting their impartiality. Especially in high profile cases such as the Rosemary West case, there was a lot of media coverage so the judge directed the jury to disregard the media reports. It was found in the Ministry of Justice report that in high profile cases almost 3/4s of jurors will be aware of media coverage of their case

• Lack of understanding: jurors may struggle to understand complex legal arguments and evidence because they have no formal legal training. It was found 2/3s of jurors do not understand the judge’s directions about the law