Juries

14 Juries

After Reading this Chapter, You Should Be Able To:

  • Understand the qualifications for being a juror and how jurors are selected.

  • Describe the role of the jury in criminal courts.

  • Comment on the advantages and disadvantages of using juries in criminal courts.

14.1 History of the Jury System

  • Duration of Juries: Juries have been part of the legal system for over 1,000 years, with early evidence preceding the Norman Conquest.

  • 1215 Milestone: Following the condemnation of trial by ordeal by the Church in 1215 and the recognition in the Magna Carta of an individual's right to trial by 'the lawful judgment of his peers,' juries became the primary method for trying criminal cases.

  • Original Role: Initially, juries provided local knowledge and acted as witnesses rather than decision-makers.

  • Evolution: By the mid-15th century, juries became independent assessors and assumed their modern role as deciders of fact.

14.1.1 The Independence of the Jury

  • Bushell's Case (1670):

    • Involved jurors who refused to convict Quaker activists, fined by the trial judge for their not guilty verdict.

    • Court of Common Pleas ruled that jurors could not be punished for their verdict, establishing that juries are the sole arbiters of fact, and judges cannot challenge their decisions.

    • Modern Reference: R v McKenna (1960) illustrated respect for jury independence when a trial judge's threat led to the quashing of a guilty verdict on appeal.

14.2 Juries in Criminal Courts

  • Crown Court: Juries primarily function in the Crown Court, determining if a defendant is guilty or not guilty.

  • Trial Statistics: Juries account for about 2% of all criminal trials; 94% of cases are resolved in the Magistrates' Court, with two-thirds of Crown Court defendants pleading guilty.

  • Composition: A jury in Crown Court is composed of 12 members.

14.2.1 Basic Qualifications

  • According to the Juries Act 1974 (amended), qualifications include:

    • Age: Must be between 18 and 75 years.

    • Electoral Registration: Must be a registered parliamentary or local government elector.

    • Residency: Must have lived in the UK, Channel Islands, or Isle of Man for at least five years since the 13th birthday.

14.2.2 Disqualification

  • Permanent Disqualification:

    • Sentences of imprisonment for life, detention for life, or custody for life.

    • Detention during Her Majesty's pleasure or public protection.

    • Imprisonment or detention of five years or more.

  • Ten-Year Disqualification:

    • Anyone who served a sentence, had a suspended sentence, or received a community order within the last ten years.

  • Bail Status: Anyone currently on bail is disqualified.

  • Legal Penalty: Failing to disclose disqualification may result in a fine up to £5,000.

14.2.3 Mentally Disordered Persons

  • Defined in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 as:

    1. Individuals with mental illness, psychopathic disorder, mental handicap, or severe mental handicap who are residing in a hospital or receiving treatment.

    2. Individuals under guardianship as per the Mental Health Act 1983.

    3. Individuals determined by a judge as incapable of managing their property and affairs under the Act.

  • Exclusion from Jury Service: Anyone fitting these criteria is ineligible for jury service.

14.2.4 The Right to be Excused Jury Service

  • Historical Context: Prior to April 2004, essential occupation individuals (e.g., doctors) could be excused.

  • Current Standard: As per the Criminal Justice Act 2003, these groups no longer have automatic excuses, though they can request discretionary excusal.

  • Military Personnel: Full-time members of the armed forces can be excused upon certification from their commanding officer about jury service affecting efficiency.

14.2.5 Discretionary Excusals

  • Individuals may request excuses or deferrals for valid reasons:

    • Severe illness, disability, childcare responsibilities, business appointments, exams, or pre-booked holidays.

  • Courts prefer deferring service over total excusal, emphasizing the importance of fulfilling jury duty.

  • Non-attendance without excusal may incur a fine of up to £1,000.

14.2.6 Lawyers and Police Officers

  • The Criminal Justice Act 2003 removed the ineligibility category for judges and legal staff, allowing them to serve as jurors.

  • Concerns on Bias: Possible bias in trials where law professionals serve, as discussed in R v Abdroikof, R v Green, R v Williamson (2007).

    • House of Lords considered scenarios where a juror's connection to law enforcement could prejudice fairness.

    • Ties with local prosecutors were deemed problematic, threatening public confidence in trial impartiality.

14.2.7 Lack of Capacity

  • Judges may dismiss jurors who cannot effectively participate (e.g., language barriers, disabilities).

  • Section 9B(2) of the Juries Act 1974: Disabilities alone do not exclude from serving unless they impede effective juror function.

  • Case Example: A deaf juror was excluded due to the inability to comply with legal requirements, highlighting flaws in accommodating diverse juror capacities.

14.3 Selecting a Jury

  • Summoning Jurors: Court officials summon jurors randomly from electoral rolls, often exceeding 12 due to expected disqualifications.

  • Notification: Jurors must communicate reasons if unable to attend or face fines for non-attendance.

  • Long Trials: Takes potential juror availability into account when predicting trial lengths.

14.3.1 Vetting

  • Juror vetting includes:

    • Police Checks: Used for routine disqualification verification. Example: R v Crown Court at Sheffield, ex parte Brownlow.

    • Wider Background Checks: In cases of national security or terrorism, allowed with Attorney-General's permission due to historical misuse Concerns.

14.3.2 Selection at Court

  • Jurors are grouped and selected randomly by the court clerk.

14.3.3 Challenging the Jury

  • Both prosecution and defense have rights to challenge jurors:

    • To the Array: Challenge to the entire jury's selection process for being unrepresentative.

    • For Cause: Specific juror's right to serve challenged for valid reasons (e.g., disqualification).

    • Prosecution's Standby: Allows prosecution to set jurors aside without explanation, maintaining limited use according to guidelines.

14.4 The Jury's Role in Criminal Cases

  • Juries are exclusive to the Crown Court for not guilty pleas.

  • Function Split: Judges handle law points, juries decide factual disputes, with juries guided by judges on legal aspects.

  • Directed Acquittal: Judges may acquit if evidence presented is insubstantial, ensuring fairness and efficiency.

14.4.1 Majority Verdicts

  • Majority verdicts are admissible after two hours of jury deliberation if there’s no consensus:

    • Full jury allows 10:2 or 11:1 votes.

    • Reduced jurors follow the same reduced majority pattern, i.e., 9 must be unanimous in cases of 9 jurors.

  • Majority verdicts aimed to prevent jury nobbling and were introduced for efficiency across the board.

14.4.2 Secrecy of Deliberations

  • Jury deliberation discussions are confidential, safeguarded against external inquiries post-verdict.

  • Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 criminalizes intentional disclosure regarding jury discussions unless in the interests of justice.

14.5 Advantages of Jury Trial

  • Public Confidence: The jury's role enforces democratic values and public trust in legal processes.

  • Jury Equity: Jurors can decide based on their sense of fairness, bypassing strict legal precedents (e.g., Ponting's Case).

  • Open Justice System: Public engagement ensures transparency, enabling cases to be explained for the broader audience's understanding.

  • Secrecy Benefits: Protects jury decisions from external pressure, allowing for accountability without fear of reprisal.

  • Impartiality: Randomly selected jurors minimize biases individually contributing to overall neutrality of decisions.

14.6 Disadvantages of Jury Trial

  • Perverse Verdicts: Jurisdictions have noted juries disregard legal standards in some situations.

  • Secrecy Risks: Lack of transparency can result in unverifiable jury reasoning post-verdict, presenting grounds for concern in cases (e.g., R v Mirza, R v Young).

  • Racial Bias and Media Influence: Juror predispositions may trigger issues such as racial implications or undue media steering influencing verdicts (e.g., R v Taylor and Taylor).

  • Complex Cases: Juries may struggle to comprehend tough legal issues, particularly in lengthy trials (e.g., fraud cases).

  • Jury Tampering: Risks arise through coercion from external influences on juror decisions.

  • High Acquittal Rates: Notable high acquittal figures prompt critique of jury effectiveness and fair trial results.

14.7 Comparison of Juries with Lay Magistrates

  • Cross-Section of Society: Both juries and magistrates involve community members in legal decision-making.

  • Local Knowledge: Both serve to infuse local insight into trial contexts.

  • Cost-Effectiveness: Lay magistrates offer an economical trial option compared to juries requiring judicial attention.

  • Training Variance: Lay magistrates undergo training contrasting with jurors who remain untrained in judicial processes and legal nuances.

14.8 Alternatives to Jury Trial

  • Single Judge Trials: Used in civil cases offers predictability yet raises biases concerns over judges’ backgrounds.

  • Panel of Judges: Similar to continental practices but faces logistical challenges due to shortages of judges.

  • Judge plus Lay Assessors: Combines legal expertise with public participation promoting diverse viewpoints.

  • Mini-Jurys: Potential reduction in jury numbers for simpler cases could enhance trial efficiency.

  • Potential for Solutions: Explore hybrid approaches implementing variations of jury systems amidst documented issues.

Check Your Understanding

  1. Eligibility Age Limits: D. 18-75

  2. Disqualified Individuals: A. A man, currently on bail.

  3. Unanimous Verdict: Requires that all jurors agree; essential in criminal trials unless stated otherwise for majority verdict acceptance.

Summary

  • The jury system has over a thousand years of historical relevance.

  • Jurors are central to fact-finding and independent decision-making roles.

  • Jurors undergo qualification checks based on age, electoral status, and residency requirements.

  • Disqualifications include lengthy sentences and certain mental conditions.

  • The role of juries manifests primarily in Crown Court where verdicts of guilty or not guilty are rendered under judicial guidance.

  • The advantages include public confidence and impartiality, while disadvantages encompass perverse outcomes and accessibility issues for jurors.