CRIMINAL- JURIES
Challenging jurors
• Very rare
• 12 selected and sworn in as jurors
• At this point, CPS and defence have the right to challenge one or more jurors
• 3 ways in which this can occur:
o 1. Prosecution can use ‘stand by the crown’ without giving a reason: only if juror ‘manifestly unsuitable’: Juror put to end of the list and only used if there aren’t enough jurors
o 2. Both can challenge ‘for cause’ the right of an individual juror to sit on the jury. Valid reason as to why the juror shouldn’t serve. Risk of conviction being quashed if not removed, could be disqualified (usually when juror knows someone in the case)
o 3. ‘Challenge to the array’- both parties may challenge the whole jury panel on grounds that the summoning officer is biased or has acted improperly. Can not be challenged just because its not multi- racial if there were no errors in the selection process.
Roles of jurors
• Crown Court
• NG plea
• Around 30,000 cases a year
• Split function (Judge + Jury work together)
o Trial presided over by judge
Split function
• Trial presided over by a judge.
• 12 jurors sworn in.
• Listen to opening speeches of defence and prosecution.
• Jury decides the facts after listening to all evidence and making notes: witness testimony and cross-examination, exhibits, CCTV, defendant testimony, expert evidence
• After prosecution concludes, judge has power to direct jury to acquit the D, if he decides that, in law, the prosecution’s evidence has not made a case against the D – a directed acquittal.
• Listen to closing speeches of defence and prosecution.
• Judge will sum up the case and direct the law. The judge
decides the points of law
• Jury retires to private room.
• Decides guilty or not guilty – unanimous verdict sought.
• Judge must accept jury’s decision.
• They do not have to give reasons for their verdict.
Majority Verdict
• After at least 2 hours, if no verdict is given, judge can call the jury back to the courtroom and direct acceptance of a majority verdict (since 1967)
• 10:2 or 11:1 Section 17(3) Juries Act 1974 – A legal majority
• Majority verdict introduced due to fear of jury nobbling
• Foreman must announce the proportion of the decision
o 20% of convictions a year are done by a majority verdict
Secrecy
• No inquiry regarding deliberations
• Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015: criminal offence to intentionally obtain, disclose or solicit any particulars of statements made, opinions expressed, arguments advanced or votes cast by members of a jury in the course of their deliberations in legal proceedings.
• Disclosure allowed where it is in the interests of justice eg. Reporting juror misconduct
Juries
• Concept of being judged by one’s peers being fairer: ‘lawful judgement of his peers’
• Historical milestone: Bushell’s code (1670): finally established that jury members were the sole judge of fact and had the right to give a verdict according to conscience and could not be penalised for taking a view of the facts opposed to that of the judge
Qualification
Eligibility
• Chosen at random from the electoral roll
• To serve on jury at a Crown Court reasonably close to where the jurors live
• Current qualifications: set out in Juries Act 1974
o A person must be 18-75 on date where jury service is
due to start
o Registered on electoral roll
o Lived in UK, Channel Islands or Isle of Man for 5 years after age of 13
• All must serve unless:-
o Person has been disqualified
o Person has been excused
o Mentally disordered persons
o Lack of capacity
Disqualification
• Under CJA 2003, a person is not qualified for jury sentence if any of the following apply
• Disqualified permanently:
o Imprisonment for life, detention for life or custody for life
o Detention in a prison or in a young offender’s institute
o Imprisonment for public protection or detention for public prosecution
o An extended sentence
o A term of imprisonment of 5 years or more or a term of detention of 5 years or more
• Disqualified for 10 years:
o At any time in last 10 years, served a sentence for imprisonment
o At any time in last 10 years, has a suspended sentence passed on them
o At any time in the last 10 years, had a community order or other community sentence passed on them
• Currently on bail for criminal proceedings
• If a disqualified person fails to disclose above facts, may be fined up to £5,000
Right of Excusal
• Pre-April 2004, people in certain essential occupations had right to be excused if didn’t want to do it- abolished by CJA 2003. Can apply for discretionary excusal though.
• Only full-time member of armed services if service affects duty as a solicitor
Discretionary Excusal
• Problems or difficulties making it difficult to do jury service- can be excused for a period and put back to a later date
• Sufficiently good reason e.g. Illness, Disability, mother with a small baby, business appointment that cannot be undertaken by anyone else, exams, holidays that have been booked
• Will defer service rather than excuse them completely
• If not excused, must attend on date specified or may be fined up to £1000 for non-attendance
Lack of capacity
• Lack capacity to cope with trial (unable to process the evidence)
• For example- does not understand English, a disability such as blindness- must be a disability that renders the juror not capable of acting effectively as a juror
• Deaf jurors: June 1995- deaf juror prevented from sitting at Old Bailey-
needed sign interpreter by law, no other person allowed in the jury room. Cannot hear people’s tone of voice
Mentally disordered persons
• A person mentally disordered person is defined in the CJA 2003 as:-
o A person who suffers or has suffered from mental illness, psychopathic disorder, mental handicap or severe mental handicap and an account of that condition either:
▪ Is resident in a hospital or mental institute
▪ Regularly attends for treatment by a medical practitioner
o A person for the time being under guardianship under S. 7 Mental Health Act 1983
o A person who under part 7 MHA 1983, has been determined by a judge to be incapable of administering their own affairs and property.
None of these can do jury service
Lawyers and Police officers
• Used to be ineligible
• Including judges and anyone involved in admin of justice in last 10 years
• Abolished by CJA 2003
• Could lead to influence and bias
• R v Abdroikof, R v Green, R v Williamson (2007)
o HL. Appeals where police officer or prosecutor had been one of jury. Held police officer did not make trial unfair but in this case, officer has worked in the same station as police officer giving evidence for CPS- risk of bias so deemed unfair.
Selection
• Jury summarising officer at Crown Court arranges for jurors’ names to be picked at random from the electoral register -> send for names from Central Summarising Bureau
• A jury summons is prepared on a random basis by a computer at a central office- around 150 summons per fortnight
• Must attend Crown Court on the specified dates
• Must notify court if disqualified or may be excused
• At court, DVD about responsibility
• From the selected around 20 are chosen randomly by the jury usher for a particular trial. These potential jurors are the ‘jury in waiting’
• They are told the name of the defendant and asked if they know them
• If they know the defendant, they leave court and return to the jury pool to be used for another trial
• Final random selection takes place out of court
• 12 jurors are selected
• Jurors are sworn in
• 2 weeks service or length of trial
Jury Vetting
• Jury list released. CPS and defence right to see the list.
May be decided this list needs to be vetted.
• Article 6(1) ECHR: trial by independent and impartial tribunal
Two types of jury vetting allowed:
• Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS)
• Authorised Jury Checks
DBS Checks
• To eliminate those who are disqualified
• Example: R v Crown at Sheffield, ex parte Brownlow (1980): D was a police officer. Defence request to vet jury for convictions. Permission granted
• Has to be a balance between no jury balance and upholding Article 6 ECHR (right to a fair trial)
Authorised Jury Checks
• Wider check on background and political affiliation
• ‘ABC’ trial 1978: 2 journalists and a soldier charged with collecting secret information. Jury vetted for their loyalty. Trial stopped, fresh jury ordered
• AG 1980 guidelines on when political vetting can take
place: in exceptional cases involving national security, terrorist cases
• Vetting can only be carried out with the AGs express permission