R OLE OF THE J URY

C RIMINAL C ASES The Jury is used in less than 5% of Criminal Cases. Juries are used in criminal cases in the Crown Court where the defendant pleads not guilty. There is a split function between the jury and the judge; The jury decides the facts; The judge decides the law; The jury decides the verdict, guilty or not guilty: The judge decides the sentence. The judge cannot place pressure upon the jury (Bushell’s case (1670) ‘juries cannot be ordered to convict against their conscience’. R v McKenna (1960) Independent and free from pressure. Despite this they are still seen as symbolically important and fundamental part of the English Legal System. The jury’s verdict can be unanimous or after necessary deliberation, by a majority of 10 to 2 or 11 to 1. Where the verdict is by majority, s.17(3) Juries Act 1974 states that the foreman of the jury must state the verdict. Hung Jury?

C IVIL J URIES Less than 1% of civil cases are tried by jury. In civil cases the jury decides the issue of liability and also the amount of damages to be paid. There are a number of problems Juries may be biased against newspapers or well known personalities involved in libel cases. The amount of damages is unpredictable and inconsistent. Juries add heavily to the costs of the case. The losing party is likely to face a bill of hundreds and thousands of pounds.

J URIES – S ELECTION

U SE OF J URIES There is a limited use of juries in civil cases in the High Court and County Court. The only civil cases in which there is a right to jury trial under The Supreme Court Act 1981 are: Defamation of Character. False Imprisonment. Malicious Prosecution. Fraud Cases

C ORONERS C OURT Juries are used in the Coroners’ court to enquire into the deaths occurring in prison, police custody, industrial action. To identify the person who died and secondly, how, when and where the person died.

J URY Q UALIFICATION Set out in the Jury Act To qualify for jury service you must be: Aged between 18 and 70 Registered to vote on the Register of Electors. Resident of the UK, Channel Islands or the Isle of Man for at least five years since their 13 th birthday. Not disqualified

J URY D ISQUALIFICATION In addition, people are disqualified from jury service if they: Have a serious conviction Have served a prison sentence in the last 10 years Mentally disordered persons (CJA 2003) Are currently on Bail.

I NELIGIBLE TO S ERVE ON A J URY Those suffering from mental disorder or who are not capable of managing their affairs. The judiciary Can now be selected for jury service under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 Others who are concerned in the administration of justice within the last 10 years. Can now be selected for jury service under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 Religious Ministers and Members of Religious Communities. Can now be selected for jury service under the Criminal Justice Act 2003

R IGHT TO BE E XCUSED FROM J URY S ERVICE. These include: Those over the age of 65. Those who have been on jury service during the past 2 years. Used to include: Members of Parliament. Members of the Medical Profession. Members of the Forces. These rights were removed by Criminal Justice Act 2003 Those with religious beliefs that are incompatible with jury service.

D ISCRETIONARY E XCUSAL This will only be granted if there is a good reason; Too ill to attend Jury service can also be deferred where the date given is inconvenient. Because of examination Or important business commitments. Can be deferred once must be re-taken within a 12 month period.

S ELECTION OF J URY P ANEL Names are selected at random from the electoral register for the area in which the court is situated. The selection is done by computer at the Central Summoning Bureau. Jury then chosen at random where clerk calls out 12 names. Those names chosen may be vetted for criminal convictions via the police computer data of criminal records. In exceptional cases, a juror’s background and political affiliation may be vetted. This should only occur in cases involving national security or terrorism.

C HALLENGES Both the prosecution and the defence can challenge individual jurors for cause; s.12 Juries Act Where the potential juror has had previous dealings with the defendant or has been involved in the case some way. There can also be a challenge to the array; The whole jury panel on the basis that it was chosen in an unrepresentative or biased way; s.5 Juries Act However, the fact that a jury does not contain any ethnic minority jurors is not a ground for challenge. (R v Ford (1989) this case is authority for preventing any meddling with the composition of jury panels, whether for reasons of race or sex. The prosecution may stand by individual jurors until the jury has been empanelled, without giving a reason, but this right should be used sparingly; The judge may discharge any juror whom he thinks lacks the capacity to act effectively as a juror; (s.9 Juries Act 1974).

P ROBLEMS W ITH S ELECTION Not all people are registered to vote e.g young ethnic minorities are homeless The use of the electoral register excludes these. Although the selection is random, this may not produce a cross-section of society. Discretionary excusals Vetting is considered an invasion of privacy, but the Court of Appeal has ruled that it is lawful. (R v Mason (1980).

A DVANTAGES /D ISADVANTAGES AdvantagesDisadvantages Public ConfidenceTried By PeersNo Legal knowledge and 12 strangers Jury Equity Juries act in sympathy – R v Owen 1992 Decide cases on the presumption of fairness – Kronlid and Others and Ponting’s Case Can reach perverse judgment which is not justified – R v Randle and PottleR v Randle and Pottle OpennessPublic is involved in the justice process No reason given for verdict Verdict made in private no-one can inquire what has happened in the jury room. SecrecyJury free from pressure and undue influence from outside S8 Contempt of Court Act 1981 No-way of knowing if jury understood case – see R v YoungR v Young

A DVANTAGES /D ISADVANTAGES AdvantagesDisadvantages ImpartialRandomly selected – cross section of society Not so if vetted. Number of excusals available means that it may not be a true reflection society. BiasSome jurors could be biased against the police or a certain ethnic group. Sander v UK MediaMay influence the Jury see R v Andrews, R V Taylor and Taylor 1993 – this can interfere with right to a fair trial Art 6 ECHR Jury’s inability to understand the law Runcimann Commission (1992) 10% of Jurors found it difficult to understand what’s going on.

A DVANTAGES /D ISADVANTAGES AdvantagesDisadvantages Fraud TrialsNotoriously Complex Roskill Committee (1986) recommended the abolish of jury trial in such cases Jury NobblingKnown to occur, however, if evidence of this then case can be heard by Judge alone CJA 2003 ExpenseSlow and Expensive Jury ServiceCompulsory nature unpopular

A DVANTAGES /D ISADVANTAGES – C IVIL C ASES Civil CasesAdvantagesDisadvantages Amount of damagesUnpredictable – see Grobbelaar Unreasoned decisionNo reason for award of such high damages. CostJury Trial – Slow and Expensive BiasJury Biased against newspapers/magazines – see Grobbelaar

P ROPOSAL FOR R EFORMS Review of Criminal Courts (2001) known as the Auld Review because it was conducted under the Sir Robin Auld. Jurors to be more widely representative of the communities they represent, aim of the Jury provisions in the Criminal Justice Act Provisions should be made to enable ethnic minorities representation of on juries where race may become an issue. The jury have no right to acquit defendants in defiance of the law, see R v Kronlid & R Ponting. Where the jury’s verdict appears to be perverse the prosecution should be granted an Appeal see R v Kronlid & R Ponting.

P ROPOSAL FOR R EFORMS The defendant no longer have an elective right to trial by judge and jury in “either way” cases However, both the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bills were defeated in the House of Lords. Trial for serious offences should remain to be heard by judge and jury. Unless the defendant elects for Judge only.

F RAUD T RIALS In 1986 the Roskill Committee on Fraud Trials recommended that serious and complex fraud trials should be decided by judge and two lay members that have specialist knowledge. The Government of the day declined the recommendations of the Roskill Committee and instead introduced procedures to make it easier to follow such complex cases. For example, George Walker former chief executive of Brent Walker who was found not guilty of a £19 million fraud charge, is reported as stating that he was sure the jury hadn’t properly understood much of the highly detailed material in the trial, as he admitted “I did not understand a lot of it, so I can’t see how they could.”

F RAUD T RIALS Sir Robin Auld recommended that in serious and complex fraud trials, the nominated trial judge should have the power to direct the trial himself and two lay members drawn from the panel established by the Lord Chancellor or if the defendant requested it, by judge alone. The White Paper proceeding the Criminal Justice Act 2003 claimed that the 15 – 20 complex fraud trials heard annually were best dealt with by a judge sitting alone. Section 43 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 allows the prosecution to apply for a serious or complex fraud trial on indictment. The court must be satisfied that the length and complexity of the trial is likely to prove burdensome upon a jury; These can also include other complex and lengthy trials. Therefore in the interests of justice serious consideration must be given to conducting a trial without jury.

12 A NGRY M EN (1957)