In the English Legal System jury is a vital part it is used in the ‘Crown Court and Magistrates court to prove the guilt or innocence of those accused of violating criminal law’. The judge directs the jury to the relevant points and evidence and the jury’s role is to look over facts and give a verdict on the basis. Even though, the judge directs the jury to reach a decision, the decision whether prosecution has proven its case is always a matter for jury to decide. The history of jury system is one of the oldest traditions in legal system. The jury has been the ‘bulwark of the liberties’ of the individual against the state and is seen by many as an essential part of the criminal justice system in the England and Wales. The jury system has been used in legal system in the last 1,000 years now. The trial by jury seen by Lord Devlin for the country, he stated that “the lamp which shows that freedom lives”.
A jury is an essential part of a citizen’s right to a fair trial this is due to various reasons main one being that everyone has the right to defend themselves and prove their point. In the UK jury members are selected through the system of electoral register at random which gives highlights the fact the trial won’t be bias. A jury is a body of people who are chosen to sit in the court. They listen to the facts provided by defendant and prosecution and then decide whether the court has established beyond reasonable doubt for the criminal cases or not. And for the civil cases, they ensure that the claimant has established the balance of probabilities on the case, and defendant had committed the offence for which he/she is charged. The Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights states “everyone is entitled to a fair trial by jury of our peer”. Furthermore, jury will give a sympathetic hearing. The jury has no previous knowledge of case and can give an unbiased decision.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
Juries are seen to decide on fairness not just the law. In R v Kronlid 1996, there were 3 women who broke onto a plane and caused £1.5 million worth of damage. They claimed the defense under section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967, which provides that it is lawful to commit a crime in order to prevent another (usually more serious) crime being committed. However, the women did make a 15-minute video explaining about their actions and left it in the cockpit. They were expected to be convicted, but the jury found them not guilty because it was mentioned that they were stopping the plane from arriving in East Timor to attack the survivors. Jury decided that their actions were reasonable, therefore the all three women walked away free. This indicates that jury in not biased, they do take decisions fairly and justly as here court was expected to consider them guilty for what they did but jury made a fair decision. However, the case on Ward v James (1966) established that juries will only be used in ‘exceptional circumstances’, the case of H v Ministry of Defense (1991) further reinforced this rule.
Trial by jury is seen as one of the fundamental elements of a democratic society. It helps to improve public confidence. The Jury equity decides on fairness and justice rather than just on the words of law. Linking this to R v Ponting 1985, where the defendant leaked confidential documents about the sinking of a ship to labor backbencher. He was prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act 1911. He was guilty but jury acquitted by him giving statement that the prosecution was politically inspired, and the jury also mentioned that pubic has a right to know about the actions and public interest. This means that the defended acted in good heart and convinced the jury about the actions taken during the incident were reasonable to do so. However, judge would only administrate the case facts and give the verdict. More to this, members of public are involved in jury which means there is open system of justice. This ensures that public knows what is happening and they can decide fairly and justly. Juries also have clear separation of responsibility as they divide work amongst themselves in the court and provide a better stability towards proceedings. Moreover, jurors are given opportunity to decide about case and facts in the secrecy room. This is very beneficial as there would be no outsider to influence or pressure them on their decision. This could be in favor of fair trails for the citizens.
Moreover, the jury system gives public a chance to get involved in legal process. According to Lord Denning, he described jury service as “giving ordinary folks their finest lesson in citizenship”. It is also said that juries are the best judges of the facts. This means that jurors have better knowledge of what is happening instead of the judges or magistrates. As said, “most jurors only serve once, they should approach their cases relatively fresh and with an open mind, unlike judges and magistrates”. This shows that jurors are taking decisions with open mind and ensuring that fair decisions are been made, unlike judges and magistrates. Under Juries Act 1974, there is been selection of jury amongst public. There are three conditions to meet before getting selected for the jury. Firstly, the person must be aged between 18- 70, have lived in the UK for at least 5 years since they were 13 years old and is registered to vote. After this, the person’s name appears on the electoral register. This gives them an opportunity to get involved in a trial of the case and after looking at the facts and evidences of the case, make a fair, reasonable decision.
One of the important advantages could be that a group of 12 people would decide better than 1. The 12 jurors would be sharing wide range of opinions to come up with a final decision whereas, a single person called judge would only have legal perspective. Obviously, the decision of jury would be made once they heard majority of votes, not like 1. If the defendant is see doing something with a good intention, jury might acquit the defendant, whereas judge will only see the legal side of the case. This would be considered as a fair decision rather than being biased.
Jury tampering also called nobbling is a criminal offence where jury is being influenced through other means in criminal and civil proceedings. The other means include, threats or asking acquaintances to interfere with a juror, offering bribes, having conversation with the jurors outside the courtroom. In other words, Jury tampering may lead to the trial by judge. In the case of R v Twomey & other 2009, the defendants were four men convicted for £1.75m armed robbery at Heathrow marks. There were allegations of jury tampering at the trial as the case first had criminal trial in a Crown Court without a jury. In the second trial, jury was not able to reach a verdict. However, for the third trial it was being said that prosecution alleged the jury had been tampered. The senior circuit judge, Calvert-Smith J said that “there was a ‘real and present danger’ that jury tampering would happen again at retrial”. Due to this, jury was not allowed to sit for the third trial which means the decision was only taken by judge which was more based on legal side than opinions. It could be said that maybe due to this the decision was biased, not fair.
Even though jury is essential there are things which could be improved. These would be considered as the disadvantages of the jury system. Firstly, the jurors are selected under the jury service which means any random person could be selected. This means that there might be lack of skills. As Lord Denning suggested that “jurors should not be selected at random but should be selected in much the same way that magistrates are, with interviews and references required”. This would improve the decision-making skills of the jury as a whole. Moreover, there are people who are unable to deal with the atmosphere of the courtroom, they may be nervous or have any disability and could not take decision related to the case. This occurred in R v Chapman (1974) where the juror was deaf, and he sat through the trial without hearing any evidence or facts of the case during trial. The Court of Appeal decided that the juror had not prejudiced the trial and therefore the decision stood. After this case, Lord Denning said that there must be suitability test to be introduced to decide whether someone is able to perform as a juror or not.
Furthermore, when there are high profile cases trials in courts the media coverage could influence because they are more likely to been seen highlighted in media for enough time before the case even comes to the court. This could make difficult for the jury to finalize a decision as they might have been listening outside the courtroom. It could happen that jurors maybe are corrupted by the outside influence and end up taking wrong decisions. However, if jurors discuss or look up for the ongoing case on social media, they might end up facing criminal liability for this.
There can be some racist jurors in the criminal trials. However, “Article 6 of the ECHR confers the right to a fair trial by an impartial tribunal”. During the trial, racist jurors can make racist comments towards the victim. In the case of Sander v UK (2001), where an Asian man was accused of fraud was denied a fair trial because judge refuse to discharge him after juror made racist comments. Later, he accepted that he made racist comments, but he denied being racist.
Despite all the disadvantages, the jury system still is an advantage for the public as many people get justice just because of the jury. It is successfully used since thousands of years and is providing justice to many cases.
Bibliography
- Matthew D, Blackstone’s Statutes on Criminal Law 2019-2020 (9th edition, Oxford University Press 2019).
- Steven R and others, English Legal System (3rd edn, Oxford University Press 2018).
- Wilson et al, English Legal System (Chapter 10, The Jury and pages 282-284).
Stuck on your essay?
