Advantages and Disadvantages of Juries

Advantages of Juries Layman’s equity – jury acts as a check on the power of Government and protects against unjust or oppressive prosecution by reflecting a community’s sense of justice – e.g. cases dealing with political and moral controversy. Jury has the power to acquit even if D is clearly guilty: Ponting – a civil servant believed the Government were deliberately misleading the Commons and the public about the sinking of an Argentinian warship, sent documents to an MP who he knew would be shocked. Ponting was prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act 1911 but was acquitted by the jury – not because he wasn’t guilty but because the jury refused to convict him. Kronlid – protesters caused £2m of criminal damage and made no attempt to escape or hide the damage. Their defence was that they were acting as a last resort – jury acquitted them even though the evidence was clear that they were guilty. Owen – jury showed sympathy by acquitting a father who injured his son’s killer despite the strength of evidence

Advantages of Juries Public Participation – allows the ordinary citizen to take part in the administration of justice – verdicts seen as those of society rather than the judicial system – satisfies the constitutional tradition of judgement by one’s peers. Lord Denning described jury service as giving “ordinary folk their finest lesson in citizenship” Better decision making – most cases come down to points of identification and witness credibility. More likely to be decided correctly as a result of discussion between 12 unbiased and legally unqualified people than by a single judge. Also, because most jurors only sit once in criminal trials, they are not “case-hardened” and take responsibility seriously Independence – decisions have to be made without outside influence. Bushell’s Case (1670) ensured that a judge can’t interfere with a jury’s decision making.

Disadvantages of Juries Lack of competence – particular concern raised about the average jury’s understanding of complex fraud cases. Roskill Committee 1986 concluded that trial by random jury was not a satisfactory way of achieving justice in such cases since many were “out of their depth”. Because of inexperience or ignorance jurors may rely too heavily on what they are told by lawyers at the expense of the real issues. Evidence from New Zealand 1999 suggested jurors had serious problems understanding key legal terms like “Intention” and “beyond reasonable doubt” Jury Nobbling – an attempt made by means of threats or bribery to persuade a juror to return a not-guilty verdict. In 1982 several Old Bailey trials had to be stopped because of attempted nobbling. Criminal Procedure and Investigation Act 1996 introduced new offence of intimidating or threating to harm jurors. Criminal Justice Act 2003 allows a judge to hear a case without a jury if there have been problems with previous nobbling – happened in Twomey

Disadvantages of Juries Cont. Cost and efficiency – jury trials in CC more expensive than trials in MC. Cost of lawyers, judges and other court personnel is higher and case will last longer because of need to sum up evidence for jury May decide unfairly – jurors do not have to give reasoned verdicts and jury deliberations are secret – can lead to suspicion that some jurors may not decide on the evidence on the case alone. only find out what happens in the jury room if one juror complains which leads to a retrial. Cases where there is a great deal of media publicity – can be argued juries are more likely to be “swayed” than judges: West – D, convicted for the murders of ten young girls and women, as well as her own daughter. Media coverage was extreme. Although understandable the media would have considerably influenced the jurors trying the case who gave a verdict of Guilty. Young – jury consulted a Ouija board. In 2011 one juror, Theodora Dallas, researched the internet to discover the past criminal record of the D Perverse Verdicts – see the advantage of Layman’s equity and cases like Ponting, Owen and Kronlid – juries had the power to acquit these Ds even though they probably thought they were guilty Effect of jury service on jurors – can be distressing, especially if the case has similarities to personal experiences or if a particularly horrific case