AC. 2.5 The use of laypeople (juries & magistrates) in criminal cases

Intro video – roles in court https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZYvv_s5R-s Magistrates Court Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeNDacwO5NA

Magistrates: What do they do? Magistrates are volunteers who work in the magistrates court of their own will. It’s their responsibility to listen to non-indictable cases, and decide on a verdict. 95% of criminal cases heard in magistrates court There are 3 magistrates on a bench, one of them is a chair magistrate and the other 2 are his/hers colleagues. Chair Magistrate has deciding vote They require no legal background or qualifications. Will be advised by a legal advisor/clerk, but the legal advisor/clerk cannot participate in decision making

Advantages of Magistrates Cost saving Local knowledge Availability of judges Competent Public confidence Quicker justice Can you discuss why briefly with a partner?

Cost Magistrates are unpaid apart from expenses This means large majority of criminal cases (95%)are tried without the need for a Judge, Recorder or District Judge – salary would be over £90,000 Annual saving is in the region of £100m – takes into account the cost of the legal adviser in the court which would not be necessary for a full time salaried judge

Local Knowledge Magistrates' local knowledge is invaluable when it comes to understanding where an offence took place In the Crown Court much time can be taken explaining the location of a crime – and where a witness was standing Sentencing can take into account local problems that can be helped by sensitive sentencing – Drugs Act 2005 – pilot scheme looking for ‘trigger’ offences Paul v DPP (1989) – was kerb-crawling likely to be a nuisance to the neighbourhood – Magistrate knew that it had become a problem

Availability of judges If all Magistrates were replaced by judges, approximately 1,000 judges would have to be appointed Would require a new approach to appointment of judges as the pool of candidates at present would be nowhere near big enough

Competent: Can deal with the issues that arise Over 90% of defendants plead guilty and most trials deal with issues of conflicting evidence rather than questions of law Magistrates are perfectly able to decide who is telling the truth and can decide what behaviour is reasonable in the circumstances – e.g. when self-defence is pleaded In many ways they are better able to do this as they represent a cross-section of society than the judiciary – seen by comparing the respective statistics on race and gender 

Public confidence Public have great confidence in the M’s system, even though there is perhaps less confidence in M’s than in the judiciary Studies in 2000 and 2001 suggest that the public would neither understand nor support any moves to lessen the role of M’s, who are seen as an example of active citizenship within the criminal justice system

Disadvantages of Magistrates Lacks social representation Inconsistent Case hardened Biased Reliance on legal adviser

Lacks Social Representation Surveys reveal that the magistracy fundamentally remains socially unrepresentative, as it is disproportionally white, middle class, professional and wealthy Situation varies from town to town, and in general the local magistracy reflects at least to some extent the local racial mix Magistracy remains disproportionally middle-aged in comparison to the population despite the reduction in the minimum age for a M, only about 5% are under 40 years old Approximately 2/3 have managerial or professional backgrounds, compared to 1/3 of the population 2/5 of Magistrates are retired and the vast majority of defendants in the Magistrates' Courts are under 25 There are an increasing number of younger Magistrates, but some people take the view that they lack experience 

Inconsistent 2 of the major criticisms of Magistrates have been inconsistency between neighbouring courts in the sentences they impose and bail refusal rates – pointed out by research in the 80s and 90s Since then there have been increased efforts to be more consistent without losing the ability to vary sentences to suit the needs of the individual offender and crime The sentencing guidelines and revised principles on bail are major reasons for improvement However, inconsistencies still remain between sentencing in neighbouring courts Justice should be consistent across the country and not vary according to views of local magistrates

Case-hardened and biased Magistrates often hear very similar cases, with similar evidence and with the same witnesses Can lead to a suspicion that evidence is not really considered and that convictions are rubber stamped – particularly if the defendant is not present It is inevitable that the same police officer witnesses will appear to give evidence given the local nature of the courts – Magistrates could be suspected of knowing and always believing the police witness – particularly where the defendant is not properly represented – an example of this was Bingham Justices ex p Jowitt (1974) – Chairman of the Magistrates said “My principle in such cases has always been to believe the evidence of the police officer’.

Case-hardened and biased Fewer than 1 in 100 Magistrate Court cases is appealed successfully on any ground whatsoever This figure should be seen in the context of a very low acquittal rate – resulting from the CPS not bringing cases to court that are unlikely to secure a conviction Motoring CR of 90.2% Burglary CR of 85.7% Drugs offences CR of 93.6% With such statistics, it is not surprising that there is a cynical but unfounded view of bias

Reliance on legal adviser There is a suggestion the Magistrates rely too heavily on their legal adviser Whilst the adviser is not allowed to help in deciding the sentence, a defendant who sees the adviser constantly conferring with the Magistrate and going in and out of the retiring room, may form the view that the M is not making the decisions Homework For Friday: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxnocsEPGTc

Juries The main act that governs the jury system is the Jury Act 1974, which were largely amended by the Criminal Justice Act 2003 A jury is a group of men and women who sit in court, listen to evidence and decide whether the prosecution had established guilt beyond reasonable doubt for criminal cases. The burden of proof therefore lies with the prosecution The role of the jury is four-fold: to weigh up the evidence decide what the true facts of the case are to listen to the directions of the judge as to the relevant law apply the law to the facts before reaching a verdict.

Role of the Juror Watch the film and make notes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQGekF-72xQ

Why have a jury? Although juries are very important in the criminal justice system, they actually deal only in a minority of the cases. Criminal offences are classified into three categories: 1. "Summary" offences are the minor offences and less serious and are triable only in the magistrate's courts. Eg. minor traffic offences. 2. "Indictable only" the serious offences which must be tried in the Crown Court. 3. "Triable either way." Such cases, as it is clear from the name, can be tried either in the magistrate's courts if the magistrates are willing to hear the case and the defendant consents or in the Crown Court. In these cases, the defendant has the right to insist on being tried in the Crown Court, so either the magistrates or the defendant can opt for trial in the Crown Court.

Juries decide just 1% of cases!!!! Out of the remaining 5% of the cases heard in the Crown Court, in majority of the cases either defendant pleads guilty, so there is no need of a jury or the judge directs the jury that law demands that they acquit the defendant. As a result the juries actually decide only around 1% of criminal cases. But on the other hand this 1% amounts to 30,000 trials and these are the most serious ones come before the court.

Advantages of juries Independent Can give perverse verdicts Racially balanced Public participation

A balance against State interference in criminal trials Lord Devlin stated that juries provide a balance against the power of Government A jury can find defendants not guilty even if they are obviously guilty and the judge tells them to convict the defendant – seen in the trial of Clive Ponting – this led to a perverse verdict (a verdict that could not be reasonably expected based on the evidence given) – this can also be a disadvantage of juries!! http://belgranoinquiry.com/article-archive/the-crown-jewels

Clive Ponting trial…..

Can give a perverse verdict This is a view of public opinion and the justice of bringing a prosecution – an example is the case of Kronlid et al: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/justifiable-damage-acquittal-brings-tories-worst-nightmare-1.73467 Another example is: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jan/22/law.jurytrials

Racially balanced Research published in 2007 by the Ministry of Justice shows that there are no differences between white, black and minority ethnic people in responding positively to being summoned for jury service, and that black and minority ethnic groups are not significantly under-represented among those summoned for jury service or among those serving as jurors.. The research also found that racially mixed juries’ verdicts do not discriminate against defendants based on their ethnicity.. This has been disputed though!! Make notes of this case… http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-151393/Court-case-collapses-jury-racism-row.html

Public participation in criminal justice system The fact that juries are drawn from the general public reinforces the view that the criminal justice system serves society as a whole and is not totally removed from society as a Government agency might be Home Office report in 2004 found that over 50% of those who received a jury summons claimed to be enthusiastic Just under 1/3 claimed to be reluctant – more to do with the inconvenience, not the principle Many jurors found the experience reinforced their confidence in the criminal justice system

Disadvantages of the Jury system Can be nobbled! Expensive Struggle to understand complex cases Juries not truly representative Don’t have to justify verdicts Distress and loss to jurors

Juries can be nobbled…. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/apr/25/tonymartin.ukcrime Attempted jury nobbling is taking place in up to 100 trials a year in England and Wales, senior police officers believe… http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1436661/Attempts-to-nobble-100-juries-a-year.html

Jury trials are expensive http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2087212/Trial-jury-faces-axe-thousands-cases-courts-try-cut-costs.html

Lack of ability to do the job Often suggested that jurors do not really understand the nature of the proceedings in a criminal court The real problem is claimed to be in long and complex fraud trials where there is now provision for a judge to sit without a jury, in order to avoid any problems of juror ability Are jurors simply not intelligent enough? Make notes of the Vicky Pryce case http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21529452

Not truly representative of the public The jury represents the public, but many are excluded as being disqualified or ineligible Once those excused have been added in, it is likely that the jury will have a higher proportion of older people (most people with relevant criminal convictions are under 25, mothers of young children are often excused) and fewer people who are reluctant jurors as they will try harder to be excused or have their service deferred Jury vetting may also affect the representative make-up of the jury

Do not have to give reasoned verdicts Speeds up the process but means individual jurors can give their verdict on a whim – could mean ‘going with the flow’ to finish the trial and go home, or to produce a genuinely perverse result Juries deliberate in private and no one can inquire into what happened in the jury room The only time the public finds out what happens is when a juror complains and this leads to a retrial – Stephen Young in 1994 – granted a retrial after in emerged the jury had consulted an Ouija board! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/4076927.stm

Effect of jury service on jurors Most jurors find the experience interesting, but for some it can be distressing – particularly where the case has similarities to a personal experience There is some follow-up counselling, but only in 2007 has a system been set up Members of Crown Court juries struggling to cope with horrific cases are now being put in direct touch with the Samaritans through court staff –Feelings of distress may not surface until sometime after the trial Although Samaritan volunteers are not allowed to talk to jurors about their deliberations, they can discuss their feelings and emotions without disclosing jury room secrets

Complete the Jury evaluation task