advantages disadvantages

Bournemouth andPoole CollegeSixth Form LawBournemouth andPoole College

Text OnlyPrivacy & cookiesChange Text Size

Juries - advantages and disadvantages

Home|Dictionary|Past papers|Cases|Modules|Exam dates |National Exam Results|What's new?

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

[Home][Index - Lecture notes][Index - English Legal System][Index - Lay people][Juries][Juries - advantages and disadvantages]

| Cases on jurieshere|[Back][Next]AdvantagesDisadvantages

Provides certainty, no retrial (subject to recent reforms but only for serious crimes).On acquittal there can be no retrial (subject to recent reforms but only for serious crimes).

Retrial available in tainted cases (nobbling)Section 54 Criminal Procedure and Investigation Act 1996.Section 51 Criminal Justice & Public Order Act 1994 creates offence to intimidate or threaten to harm a juror.Jury nobbling believed to be frequent resulting in wrongful acquittals.No enquiry allowed into jury deliberations after verdict, even if juror alleges racial or any other type of bias or wrongdoing by the jury.

Prosecution and defence "challenges" correct the problems caused by random selection.Jury vetting is against the principle of random selection.

95% of cases dealt with by magistrates, so not a great cost as a percentage spent of the CJ system.Public acceptability of jury decisions.Expense of jury trial.Defendants manipulate the system.

Perverse verdicts enjoy public respect.Avoiding unjust law or precedents without breaking them.Perverse verdicts undermine the principle of justice, and the rule of law. (and are actually very rare)Defying the will of the democratically elected legislature.

Perverse jury verdicts can provide a "criminal equity".Juries return the wrong verdict - series of miscarriages of justice undermine confidence.Jurors may be tempted to reach a quick verdict in order to get it over with and go home.Law on jury secrecy could allow the innocent to remain convicted rather than make reasonable enquiries into how verdict was obtained (R v Mirza)

Involvement of lay people. Trial by peers.Juries include many ethnic minorities as a percentage of the whole population (11.5% are non-white, British - 2001 census), which is wrongly thought to be higher.Selection of juries to obtain racial mix not allowed.Ethnic minorities often do not register to vote.Ethnic minorities do not have the language skills to be effective jurors.

Independent of the executive and the judiciary.With 12 people any bias is likely to be cancelled outCan be biased against one party or the other.Local prejudice can be a problem in particularly emotive casesLitchfieldmoved to Exeter for this reason.

Common sense; judge strength of witnesses' evidence themselves.Are mislead by barristers' techniques as to strength of evidence.

Apply common values, e.g. what is "dishonest"Judge has to explain legal matters.

Majority verdicts allow justice when there is a 'rogue' juror.Majority verdicts can convict when there is doubt which should have been given to the defendant.

Many judges believe jurors usually return the right verdict, very few appeals from jury verdicts.High correlation in USA studies of jury/judge verdicts.Easily influenced by impressive barristers, or the judge.Juries not required to give reasons for verdicts.

Judge can correct any unfairness of the array.Insufficient intellect. Cannot follow complicated tax or fraud cases.Note: can be judge-only trial in some cases.

Provide a barometer of public opinion.Inconsistencies throughout the country.Young jurors no life experience.

Ordinary honest citizens applying local knowledge and values.Reputed to do their best according to the law.Jury members can have a string of convictions not serious enough to disqualify.Also, disqualified jurors still find their way into the jury box.

Civic duty a rare opportunity for citizenshipRole of the jury is merely symbolic of public involvement.Can become bored during the trial.Inconvenience and financial loss to jurors.

Efficient system, with 800 years of success.Slow. Some trials e.g. fraud can take many weeks or months.Lack of research defies assessment.

Character and honesty can be judged by ordinary persons, it does not require legal skills.Horrific cases can seriously affect jurors who have to sit through harrowing evidence.

Public confidence.The existence of juries distract from real problems in the criminal justice system people believe their existence means the CJ system is functioning well.

Defendants can elect jury trial.Many serious cases do not provide for jury trial, for example drink driving.There is no choice but jury trial in indictable offences, summary trial cannot be elected.

Juries do understand the burden of proof, and lower it in paedophile cases and child murders.Juries do not understand the burden of proof.

[Back][Next]

2000-2008M SouperCopyright reserved|disclaimerLaw Weblog|Contact us|Please visit the FREE Hunger Site



Cases - juries


Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Lecture notesABC Trial (1978)Abdroikof, R v [2007] HLAitken vPreston(1997) CAAndrews, R v (1998) CAAttorney General v Associated Newspapers Ltd [1994] HLBlythe, R v (1998)Broderick, R v [1970] CA'Bushell's Case' 1670Clark v Chief Constable of Cleveland (1999) CAComerford. R v [1998] CAConnor (and Rollock) and Mirza, R v. (Conjoined Appeals) [2004] HLCriminal Justice Act 1967 s.17Danvers, R v [1982] Crown CourtDavies, R v (1999) Crown CourtDolby, R v (1823)Ellis v Deheer [1922] Bankes LJFricker, R v (1999) CAFord (Royston), R v (1989) CAGough, R v [1993] HLGregory v United Kingdom (1997) ECHRHarvey v Hewitt (1840) Coleridge JJohn v MGN Ltd [1997] CAR v Khan (2008) CAKelleher, R v [2003] CAKray, R v (1969) CALitchfield, R v [1998] CALowry, R v [2004] CAMason, R v [1981] CAMcKenna (McKenna and Busby), R v [1960] CAMelchett, R v (2000)Miah (& Akhbar), R v [1997] CANews Group Newspapers Ltd and another v Grobbelaar (2001) CAObellim and others, R v [1996] CAOwen, R v (1992)Ponting, R v [1985]Qureshi, R v [2002] CARandle & Pottle, R v (1991) Alliott JRantzen v Mirror Group Newspapers [1994] CARas Behari Lal v King-Emperor (1933) PCRe Osman (Practice Note) [1995] Verney JRichardson, R v [2004] CASalt, R v [1996] CASchot & Barclay, R v [1997] CASheffield Crown Court ex parte Brownlow (1980) CASmith, R v [2003] CASutcliffe v Pressdram [1990] CAThompson v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1997] CATarrant, R v (1997) CAThompson, R v [1962] CAVaise v Delaval (1785) Lord Mansfield CJVickers, R v (1975) CAWard v Chief Constable of the West Midlands (1997) CAWard v James [1965] CAWiller, R v (1986) CAWiltshire v Barrett [1966] CAWilson & Sproson, R v (1995) CAWilson, Kronlid, Needham, Zeltna, R v (1996)Young, R v [1995] CAABC Trial (1978)[Juries - vetting]DDD (two journalists and a soldier) were alleged to have revealed government secrets by exposing activities at GCHQ.During the trial it was revealed that theAttorney-General's Guidelines of 1974were in existence and had been used since 1974.Held: A retrial was ordered.Guilty: The journalists were acquitted of spying but found guilty of disclosure of defence information. The signals expert, received a suspended sentence.Comment: The case is called the ABC Trial because of the government's attempt to rename a key army witness "Colonel B".

Abdroikof, R v[2007] HLWhole case,here

^[Juries - composition]DDD challenged the composition of the jury in their trials. In two cases, a serving police officer sat as a juror, and in the other, a Crown Prosecution Service solicitor.Held:It appears from this decision of the House of Lords that where a prospective juror would be biased or give the appearance of bias he should stand down.It has to be borne in mind that Parliament had, by enacting theCriminal Justice Act 2003, that such persons were eligible to sit on juries, envisaging that any objection to their sitting would be the subject of judicial decision.Nevertheless, it had to be doubted whether Parliament had contemplated that employed Crown prosecutors would sit as jurors in prosecutions brought by their own authority.Appeal allowed and referred to the CofAAbdroikof - attempted murder, appeal dismissedGreen - assault occasioning actual bodily harm, appeal allowedWilliamson - two counts of rape, appeal allowedComment: Considered inR v Khan(2008) CA, where the Court of Appeal declined to give guidelines, except that matters of bias should be sorted before the trial and police officers, CPS and prison personnel should be identified before the trial. In the event of likely bias the juror should be stood down. It will remain to be seen if this judgment means those persons will no longer be jurors.

Aitken vPreston(1997) CAWhole case here^[Juries - jury trial not appropriate in complex libel cases]DD the Guardian andGranadatelevision,libelled Jonathan Aitkin (the subsequently imprisoned Tory minister) and (at C's request) Popplewell J ordered a non-jury trial.

Held: The trial would involve the prolonged examination of documents, and a jury could not conveniently do that. The emphasis now was against jury trials, and a single judge would give a reasoned judgement for or against the claimant on each of the issues in dispute, whereas a jury would give only a general verdict perhaps leaving some doubt as to whether C or DD had been vindicated in relation to some issues.Order affirmed.

Andrews, R v(1998) CAWhole case here^[Juries - vetting]D murdered her boyfriend. D alleged a fictitious motorist had killed him in a "road rage" incident. D claimed that adverse press coverage had prevented a fair trial. The trial judge refused to allow a questionnaire to be put to the jury to identify possible prejudice.

Held: The questioning of potential jurors; either orally or by questionnaire, was to be avoided except in cases where they might reasonably have had a financial interest in the events on which the trial was based. The law generally assumes that jurors will be faithful to their oaths to return a true verdict in accordance with the evidence.

Appeal dismissed.

Attorney General v Associated Newspapers Ltd[1994] HL[Juries - secrecy of deliberations]Information about how the verdict was reached in a criminal trial was disclosed by jurors to someone. This person passed the information on to a journalist. The journalist's article was published by a newspaper.The issue was whether it also prohibited publication of the information in a newspaper.It was submitted thatContempt of Court Actapplied only to direct contact by or with the juryHeld: The argument was rejected.The meaning that was to be given to the word "disclose" in section 8(1) was considered.Lord Lowry sought to identify the mischief which the Act was designed to remedy. He drew attention a sentence in theReport of the Departmental Committee on Jury Service (1965):"we agree with those of our witnesses who argued that if such disclosures were to be made, particularly to the Press, jurors would no longer feel free to express their opinions frankly when the verdict was under discussion, for fear that what they said later might be made public."Later he quoted with approval a passage from a judgment by Beldam LJ:"Section 8 is aimed at keeping the secrets of the jury room inviolate in the interests of justice. We believe that it would only be by giving it an interpretation which would emasculate Parliament's purpose that it could be held that the widespread disclosure in this case did not infringe the section."Also here

Blythe, R v(1998)Informal reporthere[Juries role in cases perverse findings]D cultivated cannabis with intent to supply it to his wife who was dying with multiple sclerosis. D feared W might commit suicide and pleaded duress of circumstances.

Held: The trial judge told the jury that thedefencewas not available in such a case. Nevertheless, the jury disregarded this instruction and found D not guilty.

Guilty of possession fined 100.

Broderick, R v[1970] CA[Juries - challenges to the array]D wished to be tried by an all-black jury.Held: The judge, in asking for enquiries to be made as to whether there was one black person on the panel, had 'gone quite as far as law and consideration required'.

'Bushell's Case' 1670Whole case hereCommentary here

^[Juries - jury cannot be ordered to convict against their conscience]Having failed to convict his father, Sir William Penn, for treason, the state then prosecuted his barrister son (and William Mead) for practicing the Quaker religion.The jury, led by Edward Bushell acquitted Both Penn and Mead of "leading a dissident form of worship".The 10 judges repeatedly directed them to convict. The jury refused and were imprisoned. The judge said, "You shall not be dismissed 'til we have a verdict that the court will accept."The jurors were locked up "without meat, drink, fire or tobacco" for two nights before being fined and imprisoned until they paid.They obtained a writ of habeas corpus and a ruling that they should not be punished for their verdict.The Chief Justice released Penn and Mead, upholding "the right of juries to give their verdict by their conscience".A memorial plaque commemorating 'Bushell's Case' is in the Old Bailey.Penn later founded Pennsylvania.

Clarkv Chief Constable ofCleveland(1999) CAWhole case here^[Juries damages in defamation- s.8 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990]Jury awarded C 500 damages for malicious prosecution.

Held: A jury still has some discretion, and is not bound by guidelines, but if it awards too much or too little its award may be altered on appeal.Lord Justice Henry dissenting:It seems to me that the jury rightly took the view that Lord Woolfs bracket was not meant to include those who set dogs on policemen, generally abuse the police, and tell the jury lies to profit from conduct which, differently charged, was criminal. In my judgment this Court should not interfere with the jurys awardAmount raised to 2000

Comerford.R v[1998] CAWhole case here^[Juries arrangements made in knobbling case]D dealt in large amounts of cocaine, and the prosecution thought an attempt might be made to "nobble" the jury. The judge ordered special protection for the jury, and allowed the jurors to be identified only by numbers and not by their names.

Held: Lord Bingham LCJ:"It is highly desirable that in normal circumstances the usual procedure for empanelling a jury should be followed. But if, to thwart the nefarious designs of those suspected of seeking to nobble a jury, it is reasonably thought to be desirable to withhold jurors' names, we can see no objection to that course provided the defendant's right of challenge is preserved."Appeal dismissed.

Connor (and Rollock) and Mirza, R v. (Conjoined Appeals)[2004] HLWhole case here

^[Juries - the common law rule is that, after the verdict has been returned, evidence as to things said by jurors during their deliberations in private is inadmissible]Connor and Rollock committed wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm by stabbing V.Mirza committed indecent assault over a period of time against a girl aged 6 until she was 15/16. During both trials there were irregularities concerning the juries.In Connor's case a jury member sent a letter to the judge (after verdict but before sentence) saying that the deliberations included discussion that to find both guilty..."would teach them a lesson, things in this life were not fair and sometimes innocent people would have to pay the price"...and that if they didn't find both guilty they would be deliberating for another week.In Mirza's case the jury appeared to have doubts about D using a court interpreter despite being resident in the UK or 13 years, they sent two notes to the judge to clarify their doubts (one after verdict but before sentence),D's barrister also received a letter from a juror which told him the jury thought the use of the interpreter was a ploy, and she described some of the jury deliberationsHeld:By a 4-1 majority the appeals were dismissed.Their Lordships affirmed the principle thatnot even appeal judges can inquire into the deliberations of jurors.But, a court cannot be in contempt of itself. Section 8(1) is addressed to third parties who can be punished for contempt, and not to the court which has the responsibility of ensuring that the defendant receives a fair trial.It is going too far to suggest, as the Court of Appeal appears to have done inR v Young (Stephen),that the trial court will be in contempt of itself if during the trial, having received allegations, it investigates them and discloses the result of these investigations to counsel.The court is restricted in its inquiry into what happened in the jury's deliberations, not by section 8 Contempt of Court Actbut by the longstanding rule of the common law that evidence of jury deliberations after the verdict has been delivered is inadmissible. . Sec 8 merely reinforces the common law rule about jury secrecy.Lord Slynn said the principle was essential to the operation of the jury system as we know it.The common law rule is not incompatible with article 6(1) of the Convention.Guilty

Criminal Justice Act 1967 s.17[Juries jury can be directed to return verdict]Entry of verdict of not guilty by order of a judgeWhere a defendant arraigned on an indictment or inquisition pleads not guilty and the prosecutor proposes to offer no evidence against him, the court before which the defendant is arraigned may, if it thinks fit,order that a verdict of not guilty shall be recordedwithout the defendant being given in charge to a jury, and the verdict shall have the same effect as if the defendant had been tried and acquitted on the verdict of a jury.

Danvers, R v[1982] Crown Court[Juries - challenge to the array]D a West Indian objected to the jury at Nottingham Crown Court because it was entirely white.His challenge failed, even though the black population in Nottingham represented about 10 per cent of the total.

Davies, R v(1999) Crown Court[Juries - acquittal for 'medicinal cannabis grower}Colin Davies aged 42, from Stockport, vowed to continue growing, using and supplying cannabis after a jury at Manchester Crown Court acquitted him.It was the second time in 13 months that Mr Davies, a father of two, had mounted a successful defence. At the first trial he was cleared of possessing the drug.Mr Davies, a former joiner, broke his back in a 60ft fall from a bridge five years ago. He walks with a limp and is in constant pain. He says that conventional treatments prescribed by doctors prompted spasms and sickness, so he turned to cannabis in desperation and began cultivating the plants in his flat.

Dolby, R v(1823)[Juries - challenges]The sheriff who was responsible for summoning the jury was a subscriber to the society which was the prosecutor.The array was successfully challenged."Upon an award of tales at Nisi Prius, it is not necessary that the tales should be selected out of persons accidentally present; they may be selected out of persons whose presence the sheriff or coroner has taken previous means to obtain."

Ellis v Deheer[1922] Bankes LJ^[Juries - court will not consider evidence of jury deliberations]The verdict delivered by the foreman was not heard by the whole jury and they did not assent to it.Held: The court will not take evidence about jury deliberations, but was not precluded from granting a new trial by the fact that the objection to the verdict was not taken until after the jury had been discharged, but...Bankes LJ:"I desire to make it clear that the court will never admit evidence from jurymen of the discussion which they may have had between themselves when considering their verdict or of the reasons for their decision, whether the discussion took place in the jury room after retirement or in the jury box itself".

Fricker, R v(1999) CAWhole case here^[Juries - may only consider evidence presented during the trial]D was alleged to have been in possession of stolen tyres.The jury sent a note to the judge which read:"One of the jurors is a tyre specialist. The code 088 on the tyre signifies [that is the tyre produced as an exhibit] that the tyre was manufactured in the eighth week of 1998. The defendant claims to have had the tyres in his house around this period certainly very little time for the tyres to have gone through normal purchase before being acquired by the defendant. May we take this into consideration?"Just as the judge had made up his mind to allow the jury to take this matter into account the jury indicated that they had reached a verdict.The jury convicted and D appealed.Held: It was wrong that the jury should have been allowed to introduce entirely new evidence into the case, when neither party had been given the opportunity to consider it and test it, and where D in particular had not been given any opportunity to provide an explanation for it.Not guilty

Ford (Royston), R v(1989) CA

^[Juries - selection - challenges- selection matter for'Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice']D was of mixed race and preferred to be called black. D was chased and arrested by a constable, also of mixed race for unlawful use of a motor car.At the Crown Court D applied to the judge for a multiracial jury. The judge, under the misapprehension that counsel was about to use the case as a platform for racial haranguing, refused the application and, later, was intent on stopping defence counsel from asking any question which had any tinge of colour in it.Held, A judge, at common law can prevent individual jurors who were not competent from serving on the jury. This did not include the discharge of competent jurors so as to influence the overall composition of the jury.The essence of the jury system was random selection, and random selection was a matter not for the judge but for the Lord Chancellor in accordance withsection 5(1) of the Juries Act 1974.A judge had no power to influence the composition of a jury.

Not guiltybecause the judge's misunderstanding about unnecessary racial argumentation had led him into unwitting error whereby he prevented counsel from putting questions that he was lawfully entitled to put.Comment: this case is authority for preventing any meddling with the composition of jury panels, whether for reasons of race or sex.

Gregory v United Kingdom(1997) ECHRWhole casehere^[Jury deliberations must be secret - principle does not contravene Art 6 ECHR]D, who was black, was tried for robbery. After the jury had been deliberating for about two hours, a note was passed from the jury to the judge, saying "Jury showing racial overtones. One member to be excused."The judge showed the note to the prosecution and the defence. He then recalled the jury and gave them a careful direction on the need for them to put any form of prejudice out of their minds and to decide the case, in accordance with their oath, on the evidence.Held: Appeal against conviction dismissed. Undoubtedly, there must be a general rule that the deliberations of the jury must remain secret."The Court observes that it was not disputed that there was no evidence of actual or subjective bias on the part of one or more jurors. It was also accepted by both the applicant and the Government that it was not possible under English law for the trial judge to question the jurors about the circumstances which gave rise to the note. The Court acknowledges that the rule governing the secrecy of jury deliberations is acrucialandlegitimatefeature of English trial law which serves to reinforce the jury's role as the ultimate arbiter of fact and to guarantee open and frank deliberations among jurors on the evidence which they have heard."(emphasis added)GuiltyComment:This case is the authority for stating that the UK jury system does not contravene Art 6 ECHR

Gough, R v[1993] HL^[Juries - bias]D had conspired with his brother to commit robbery. At the trial the brother was frequently referred to by name, and a photograph of him and D was shown to the jury and a statement containing the brother's address was read to the jury. One of the jurors was a next door neighbour of the brother but she did not recognise him or connect him with the man referred to in court until he started shouting in court after the appellant had been convicted and sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment.Held: The proper test of possible bias on the part of a juror was whether there was a real danger that the D might not have had a fair trial and not whether a reasonable and fair-minded person sitting in court and knowing all the relevant facts would have had a reasonable suspicion that a fair trial of the defendant was not possible.

Per curiam.In magistrates courts the test is whether a reasonable and fair-minded person sitting in court and knowing all the relevant facts would have a reasonable suspicion that a fair trial was not possible.

Guilty

Harvey v Hewitt(1840) Coleridge J^[Jury deliberations must be secret - but extrinsic evidence is allowed]Information was provided by an affidavit from the jury bailiff and persons in an adjoining room, that the jurors had arrived at their verdict by drawing lots.Held: (1) A verdict decided by lot is a bad verdict, and the court will, where such verdict has been given, grant a new trial.

(2) Though the affidavits of individual jurors are not, on grounds of public policy, receivable to impugn their own verdict, yet the affidavits of persons within hearing, are admissible to give the court that information which cannot be derived from a party implicated.

Colerdige J:"No doubt . . . that we cannot take the affidavit of a juryman stating his own misconduct, or that of his brother jurymen . . . The affidavits here produced, however, are not made by the jurors themselves . . . but they are the affidavits of persons who witnessed the transaction itself, of agreeing to draw lots, and drawing lots".

John v MGN Ltd[1997] CA

[Juries - damages for libel - guidance to juries]C, a well known musician claimed damages for defamation in respect of an article in "The Sunday Mirror" which claimed that C that his habit of not swallowing food constituted a form of bulimia.The jury awarded him 75,000 by way of compensatory damages and 275,000 by way of exemplary damages.

Held: Appeal allowed in part. The jury's attention could properly be drawn to such awards approved or substituted by the Court of Appeal and to the conventional compensatory scales of damages awarded in personal injury actions. Counsel and the judge could indicate a sum or bracket of award appropriate to the particular case.25,000 & 50,000 substituted

Khan, R v(2008) CAWhole case:R v Khan(2008) CA

^[Juries - composition]Conjoined appeals where it was argued that there would be an appearance of bias if a police officer, CPS employee and a prison officer were served as jurors.Held: There is no reason why police and prison officers and CPS employees should be considered biased because of their occupation.Per curium: The Court of Appeal declined to give guidelines, except that matters of bias should be sorted before the trial and police officers, CPS and prison personnel should be identified before the trial. In the event of likely bias the juror should be stood down.No bias in any of the casesComment: It will remain to be seen if this judgment means police and prison officers and CPS employees will no longer be jurors.

Kelleher, R v[2003] CA^[Juries - judge must not direct a jury to convict]D entered an art gallery and decapitated a statue of Baroness Thatcher in protest at her policies which he foresaw were leading the world towards its eventual destruction. The judge directed the jury to convict because of none of the evidence was disputed and the statutory defence did not engage with D.

Held: A judge is never entitled to direct a jury to return a verdict of guilty.

The evidence was overwhelming in any event, so the conviction was safe.

Kray, R v(1969) CA^[Juries - challenge to the polls]D was on trial for murder. He wished to object to any jurors who had read newspaper articles published immediately after two of the accused had been convicted at an earlier trial for murder.The articles complained of had reported the earlier verdict, but had also "set out a number of facts which were not in evidence at the trial and which were discreditable of those to whom they referred".Lawton J criticised the newspapers for publishing the additional facts about the accused not disclosed in evidence at the first trial and then said:"This does, in my judgment, lead to a prima facie presumption that anybody who may have read that kind of information might find it difficult to reach a verdict in a fair-minded way. It is, however, a matter of human experience . . . first, that the public's recollection is short, and, secondly, that the drama . . . of a trial almost always has the effect of excluding from recollection that which went before. A person summoned for this case would not . . . disqualify himself merely because he had read any of the newspapers containing allegations of the kind I have referred to; but the position would be different if, as a result of reading what he had, his mind had become so clogged with prejudice that he was unable to try the case impartially."Comment: The effect of this ruling is that a juror may be challenged for cause if his mind is so prejudiced that he is unable to try the case impartially, but merely having once been informed of matters discreditable to the accused will not necessarily occasion such prejudice.

Litchfield, R v[1998] CAWhole case here

This photo (copyright) of the "Maria Assumpta"reproduced by kind permission of Maxhis site is here.^[Juries - jury's role is to decide on the facts]D the master of the "Maria Assumpta" which foundered off the Cornish coast and three crew members were drowned. The ship was reduced to "matchwood".The gross negligence (manslaughter) was that D followed an unsafe course and relied too heavily on his engines even though he knew the fuel was contaminated.The jury's verdict was confused and on instructions from the judge had to be restated, clearly, and also, a juror's husband had a conversation with police officers involved in the case, of a wholly innocent nature about the weather and holidays.Held: It is up to the jury to decide whether or not negligence is gross negligence. They could use common sense to decide complicated shipping matters.There was no criticism of the way the judge dealt with perceived irregularities with he jury.Simon Brown LJ:"...the jury's views ought to be regarded as well-nigh sacrosanct given that under the law it is they who decide not merely the facts but also the point at which a breach of duty becomes the offence of manslaughter. There would need to be compelling grounds indeed before it would be proper for this court to say that the jury has set the standard impermissibly high.Guilty 18 months imprisonmentAlso here

Lowry, R v[2004] CA[Juries - deliberations - evidence not before the court]D unlawfully wounded V with a knife which he "found in his hand when he removed it from his pocket".The jury indicated that the knife had fallen apart during their deliberations. The judge directed the jury that the knife itself was unimportant and that the jury should not waste their time considering it. It later became apparent that the jury had reassembled the knife.D contended that the jury had plainly carried out an improper experiment on the exhibit and, since that had not occurred in open court, there had been an irregularity in the trial, which had rendered the conviction unsafe.

Held: It was impossible to speculate as to whether there had been any improper reconstruction carried out by the jury. It was clear that anything not before a jury in the course of evidence was inadmissible thereafter. Further, where there was a risk that the jury might reconstruct events out of line with the evidence, they were to be warned not to do so. However, in the instant case, what was obviously relevant was the size of the knife and whether it was likely the defendant had reached into his pocket and pulled it out believing it to be money.

Guilty

Mason, R v[1981] CA

^[Juries - challenge - jury panel having criminal convictions]D was convicted of burglary and handling stolen goods.Before the trial, the police had checked the local criminal records and, unknown to the defence, they had supplied counsel for the prosecution with the names of those called for jury service who had been convicted of criminal offences.When the jury were being empanelled, counsel asked four members of the panel to stand by for the Crown. Three of those had criminal convictions although at least one of them was not disqualified by his conviction from jury service. D was convicted of two offences of burglary and two offences of handling stolen goods.

Held: Both the Crown and the defence had a right to challenge a member of the jury panel.The random selection of jurors had always been subject to the qualification that the judge and the parties were to decide which members of the jury panel were suitable to serve on a jury.The ancient right of the Crown, confirmed by sections 12 (5) and 21 (5) of theJuries Act 1974, was not subject to there being a provable valid objection until such time as the jury panel was exhausted.Therefore, there was nothing irregular in prosecuting counsel requesting a member of the panel to "stand by" because he had a conviction and, accordingly, there was no material irregularity in the course of the trial.

Per curiam.Since it is a criminal offence for a person to serve on a jury knowing that he is disqualified for the police to scrutinise the list of potential jurors to see if any are disqualified is to do no more than to perform their usual function of preventing the commission of offences.

The well established practice of supplying the prosecution with information about potential jurors' convictions is not unlawful.Guilty

McKenna (McKenna and Busby), R v[1960] CA^[Juries - jury to reach its own decision without threats from the judge]Ajudge, after the jury had been considering their verdict for two hours, told them that if they did not return a verdict in 10 minutes they would "have to be kept all night" and not resume their deliberations until mid-day on the following day.His actual words were:I have disorganised my travel arrangements out of consideration for you pretty considerably already. I am not going to disorganise them any further. In ten minutes I shall leave this building and if, by that time, you have not arrived at a conclusion in this case you will have to be kept all night and we will resume this matter at 11.45 a.m. tomorrow. I do not know, and I am not entitled to askand I shall not askwhy in a case which does not involve any study of figures or documents you should require all this time to talk about the matter. May I suggest to you that you go back to your room, that you use your common sense, and do not worry yourself with legal quibbles. That is what you are brought here for: to use your common sense, bring a bit in from outside. There it is, members of the jury.Held: The court took the view that that was a threat, especially given the possible understanding of the jury that they were going to be locked up in the jury room all night.They returned a verdict of guilty which was overturned on appeal.Cassels J:"It is a cardinal principle of English criminal law that a jury in considering their verdict shall deliberate in complete freedom, uninfluenced by any promise, unintimidated by any threat: they still stand between the Crown and the subject, and they are still one of the main defences of personal liberty."Not Guilty

Melchett, R v(2000)Norwich Crown CourtNews item here

[Juries role in cases perverse findings]D, The LordMelchettwas the leader of a large group of Greenpeace supporters who entered a field and destroyed part of a crop of genetically modified maize.

Held: On a charge of criminal damage, they could plead the statutorydefence(under s.5 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971) that they honestly believed the destruction was reasonable and necessary to prevent damage to other crops.

Acquitted by jury

Miah (& Akhbar), R v[1997] CAWhole case here[Juries secret deliberations]DD committed violent disorder and A conspired to cause GBH and murder.Held: The court cited, apparently with approval, a statement by Darley CJ inR v Andrew Brown (1907) NSWSRan Australian case"I have come to the conclusion that the authorities are all one way, and that the Court cannot look at the affidavits of jurymen for any purpose, whether it be for the purpose of granting a new trial, or for the purpose of establishing the misconduct of a juryman".Guilty

News Group Newspapers Ltd and another v Grobbelaar(2002) HL

Whole case here^[Jury verdict rare case of overturning by Court of Appeal]C, a famous goal keeper arranged to fix the results of football games, which was reported in The Sun newspaper so he sued for libel. The jury found in hisfavourand awarded damages for libel.

Held: Although the Court of Appeal was anxious not to usurp the jury function, there was jurisdiction to entertain an appeal on the ground of perversity.The court had to conclude that no reasonable jury could have been satisfied on the balance of probabilities, to a relatively high degree of probability that the verdict was not one properly and reasonably open to them.

The House reversed this, but said the CofA not only could, but had a duty to set aside the jury's verdict. They pointed out this applies to civil juries, never criminal juries.

They found on the facts that Grobbelaar had no reputation to save because he had arranged to 'fix' matches but the Sun had not proved he had done so. Jury's verdict reinstated and 1 derisory damages awarded.Jury's verdict reinstated.

Obellim and others, R v[1996] CA^[Juries - jury vetting - collective responsibility of jury]During the trial a question from the jury caused the judge to suspect that the author of the note knew a good deal about police interviews, and might have previous convictions, and therefore potentially disqualified.The judge, without seeking the views of defence counsel, instigated enquiries into the identity of the juror in question, with a view to ascertaining whether he should have been disqualified from jury service.After the jury returned with their verdicts, they handed the judge another note, which expressed concern that a security check had been made on a juror on the basis of his having asked questions of the court.Held:Allowing the appeals. It was questionable whether the judge should have made any enquiry into the juror's eligibility, other than to check that the proper enquiries had been made before the juror was called to jury service. In any event, he should have informed defence counsel.Jury notes were from the whole of the jury, and it was not appropriate to make enquiries as to which juror had written a particular note.It was an irregularity that the jury had become aware that a security check was being made on one of their members.Not guilty

Owen, R v(1992)Maidstone Crown Court (unreported)

[Juries role in cases perverse findings]Ds injured T in the back and arm by firing a sawn off shotgun at him. T had killed Ds son by careless driving. Although T was sentenced to twelve months imprisonment D felt this was not enough, and when T was released committed this offence D was tried for attempted murder and malicious wounding with intent.

Held: The jury atMaidstoneCrown Court acquitted him and some members later congratulated him on what he had done.

Not guiltyExtracts from news reports,here

Ponting, R v[1985]

[Juries role in cases perverse findings]D a civil servant working in the Ministry ofDefencesaw documents showing the Government (of MT) had lied about the sinking of the ship "GeneralBelgrano"during the Falklands War.D gave copies of these documents to an opposition MP so that the matter could be raised in Parliament D was charged under the Official Secrets Act.

Held: despite the judge's clear direction that D's conduct did amount to an offence, the jury acquitted him.

Not guiltyComment: BBC reporthere

Qureshi, R v[2002] CA[Juries secret deliberations]Three days after verdicts of guilty had been returned a member of the jury contacted the defendants solicitors making a number of claims concerning the conduct of the jury including allegations that some members of the jury had been racially prejudiced against the defendant and had reached a decision as to his guilt at the outset of the trial.The juror later set out her allegations in a letter to the Crown Court. On the instructions of the Court of Appeal a police officer took a statement from the juror, avoiding any inquiry as to what had taken place in the course of the jurys deliberation.Held: The court followedMiahKennedy LJ:It seems to us that we must followR v Miahunless, as a result of theHuman Rights Act 1998,it can be said no longer to represent English Law.If we follow it, we cannot have regard to anything said by the juror thus far. Nor can we initiate any further inquires because the substance of what she has said relates to what was said and done between jurors in private after they were empanelled.But if trial by jury is properly to be preserved, some allegations can only be investigated if made before the jurys part in the trial process has come to an end. In our judgment, the present jurors allegations fall into that categoryWe therefore conclude that what was said inR v Miah[1997]does still represent English law. It follows that the inquiries already made have gone too far, and certainly no more inquiries can be authorised by this court.Comment:This case postdates the implementation of the European Convention of Human Rights into English law.Also, it appears fromMiahthat the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) is prepared to go further than s 8 in order to protect the privacy of what is said by one juror to another.Kennedy LJ thought the prohibition applied to anything said by one juror to another from the moment the jury is empanelled. The common law rule regarding jury secrecy applied by the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) goes at least as far as s 8.

Randle &Pottle, R v(1991)AlliottJ

[Juries role in cases perverse findings]Ds assisted a famous spy George Blake escape from prison and wrote a book about the escape. They argued that their actions were justified because of the severity of Blake's sentence.

Held: Acquitted by the jury.

Rantzen v Mirror Group Newspapers[1994]CA[Juries - defamation trials - jury awards to be scrutinised by the Court of Appeal]C, a successful television presenter and the founder and chairman of the "ChildLine", brought a libel action against "The People" newspaper in respect of articles which tended to suggest she had protected a child abuser. The jury awarded Ms Rantzen damages of 250,000.

Held: Appeal allowed. The court's power under section 8 of theCourts and Legal Services Act 1990to order a new trial or to substitute another award where the damages awarded by a jury were "excessive" should be consistent with article 10 of theEuropean Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.An almost unlimited discretion in a jury to award damages for defamation was not satisfactory.Awards of damages by a jury should be more closely scrutinised by the Court of Appeal than hitherto.250,000 awarded by the jury was excessive because it was not proportionate to the damage she suffered and was reduced to 110,000.

Ras Behari Lal v King-Emperor(1933) PC[Juries secret deliberations - juror's disability not included]It was alleged that one of the jurors did not understand English, which was the language in which some of the evidence was given, the addresses of counsel were made and the judge had delivered his summing up.An inquiry was held, and it was reported that it was indeed the case that the juror had insufficient English to be able to follow what had been said.Held: Giving the judgment of the Board, disapprovingR v Thomas [1933]where the Court of Criminal Appeal had refused to receive evidence that two Welsh-speaking jurors at Merioneth Quarter Sessions did not have sufficient knowledge of English to enable them to follow the proceedings,Lord Atkin said:"The question whether a juror is competent for physical or other reasons to understand the proceedings is not a question which invades the privacy of the discussions in the jury-box or in the retiring-room. It does not seek to inquire into the reasons for a verdict."

ReTourmanOsman(Practice Note)[1995]VerneyJ^[Juries selection deaf juror]Mr O received a summons for jury service at the Central Criminal Court (The Old Bailey). He was severely deaf and would have required the services of a sign language interpreter.HELD:It was for the judge to determine whether Mr Osman on account of his disability would be able to follow the whole of the evidence.It had long been held that it was an incurable irregularity for an independent person, such as an interpreter, to retire with the jury, even though he may take no part in the discussion

Summons discharged.

Richardson, R v[2004] CA[Juries - disqualified juror does not on its own render conviction unsafe]D was convicted by a jury consisting of a disqualified juror - disqualified (s1 and SchI Juries Act 1974) because of a conviction for sex offences - of six counts of rape and one count of indecent assault.

Held: A conviction was not unsafe due to the fact that a juror who was disqualified from acting did so act. There must either be some evidence that the verdict is unsafe.

Guilty

Salt, R v[1996] CA

^[Juries selection - bias]D was convicted of burglary and assault with intent to resist arrest.One of the jurors had been the court usher's son, whohad been called to sit as a juror when the number of jurors available was. He had sat as a juror on five or six occasions during the previous twelve months.

Held: There was no rule of law that the selection of jurors had to be at random, but every effort should be made so far as practicable to ensure that was random.As the juror was a member of the court staff he was not actuallydisqualified underSch.1 of the Juries Act 1974, he could well be said to be within the spirit of that disqualification.In this case the selection of this juror exceeded anything which could reasonably be described as random.

Not guilty

Schot& Barclay, R v[1997] CAWhole case here[Juries role in cases perverse findings]DD were two jurors who were unable to follow the mass of evidence during a 17-day counterfeiting trial. DD refused to return a verdict at all, and refused to take part in deliberations with the other jurors. One had an objection to judging another person.

The judge said suchwilfulrefusal amounted to contempt of court and committed DD to prison for 30 days.

Held: The judge should not have asked for details of the jury's deliberations, becauses.8 (1) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981applies to the court as well as everyone else.A juror may be fined forwilfullyrefusing to find for either side, in disregard of the oath to "faithfully try the defendant and give a true verdict according to the evidence", but this requires proof of an intention to disrupt the course of justice.

If the evidence is legally insufficient, the judge may direct the jury to return a verdict of "not guilty". In exceptional circumstances, he may direct a verdict of "guilty", but normally the verdict is a matter for the jury alone and the judge cannot refuse to accept it even if it seems perverse.Not Guilty

Sheffield Crown Courtex parteBrownlow(1980)CA^[Juries vetting - Attorney General's guidelines to be followed]DD (police officers) were committed for trial for assault occasioning actual bodily harm.An application on behalf of the officers was made to the judge to inform the defence whether any members of the jury panel had criminal convictions.The judge made the orderThe chief constable applied for an order of certiorari (a quashing order) to quash the judge's order.Held: Denning LJ thought thatjury vetting was unconstitutional except in some circumstances.He further stated"The recent uprise of "jury vetting" gave rise to so much concern that the Attorney-General in 1975 introduced guidelines. These only permit jury vetting in very rare cases and then only with the express permission of the Attorney-General."Vetting allowed in this case.

Smith, R v[2003] CA[Juries random selection - intimidation]D who was a black man was convicted of grievous bodily harm by an all-white jury following a violent incident in which the victim and all the witnesses had been white.He appealed on the grounds that a fair trial in such cases requires a multi-racial jury.Held: Following the decision inForddismissed the appeal.Pill LJ said that fairness is achieved by the principle of random selection and a deliberative process maximising consultation between jurors with diverse backgrounds.Guilty

Sutcliffe vPressdram[1990] CA

[Juries damages in defamation]D, the magazine Private EyelibelledC in an article saying that that C, wife of the Yorkshire Ripper, had known about her husband's activities. The jury awarded her damages of 600,000.

Held: The award was manifestly excessive and ordered a new trial; the case was settled for 60,000.In future what was needed was guidance to help juries to appreciate the real value of large sums. They could be invited to "weigh" any sum they had in mind by considering the result in terms of weekly, monthly or annual income if the money were invested or to consider what they could buy with it.Comment: The editor (Ian Hislop) famously said after the first hearing "If this is justice I am a banana"

Tarrant, R v(1997) CAWhole case here^[Juries random selection - intimidation]D was charged with drugs offences and the judge, suspecting that attempts might be made to intimidate the jury, ordered that they be selected from outside the usualcatchmentarea.

Held: A judge has no power to interfere in the random selection of the jury panel. His powers are limited to ensuring that the jurors are competent, are not disqualified, and will not suffer personal hardship that might distract them from their duties.

Conviction quashed.

Thompson, R v[1962] CA[Juries entitled to bring in their own verdict]D was found guilty by the jury. It was discovered that a majority of jurors had been infavourof acquittal until the foreman had produced a list of the defendant's previous convictions.

Held: An appeal could not be based on this information. There was a long-established rule that no court could enquire into the details of the jury's deliberations.

Guilty

Thompson v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis[1997] CAWhole case here^[Juries - guidance as toquantumof damages]Conjoined appeals (Hsu and Thompson) both alleging excessive use of force by the police.Held:The court gave detailed guidance on the amount of damages that a jury should award, they included advice that: Damages are only awarded as compensation, they are not intended to punish the defendant. In a straightforward case of wrongful arrest and imprisonment the starting point is 500 for the first hour. After the first hour the sum should be on a reducing scale so as to keep the damages proportionate with those payable in personal injury cases. For twenty four hours 3,000. For subsequent days the daily rate will be on a progressively reducing scale. In the case of malicious prosecution 2,000 - 10,000. Exemplary damages should be awarded only if, the compensation awarded by way of basic and aggravated damages is in the circumstances an inadequate punishment for the defendants. An award of exemplary damages is in effect a windfall for the claimant and, where damages will be payable out of police funds, the sum awarded may not be available to be expended by the police in a way which would benefit the public. [This guidance would not be appropriate if the claim were to be met by insurers]. In the future the judge will include up a bracket for basic damages. Aggravated damages should not normally exceed the amount of the basic damages and it would require the most exceptional circumstances for aggravated damages to be as much as twice the basic damages. In the case of exemplary damages the conduct must be particularly deserving of punishment to justify an award of 25,000 and 50,000 should be regarded as the absolute maximum.Thompson:. Damages to remain at 51,500.Hsu:. Damages reduced to 35,000.Comment:This case put paid to juries making awards for hurt feelings that would far exceed damages awarded by judges in personal injury cases where serious debilitating injuries had been sustained; it was universally approved.

VaisevDelaval(1785) Lord Mansfield CJ

[Juries entitled to bring in their own verdict]D sought to set aside a jury's verdict infavourof the claimant. Two jurors claimed that the jury had resolved the case by tossing a coin.

Held: The judge said he could not receive any such evidence from a juror: the verdict could not be impugned unless there was some external evidence of misconduct (e.g. from someone who had seen it through a window).The court cannot receive an affidavit from a juror as to the nature of the juror's deliberations.

The rationale that was given was that this was to protect them against self-incrimination for what Lord Mansfield described as a very high misdemeanour. So the evidence had to come from some other source.

Vickers, R v(1975) CA[Juries entitled to bring in their own verdict]D a drug trafficker pleaded guilty when the judge ruled that the admitted facts would be conclusive evidence of D's guilt.

Held: It is only in an exceptional case that the judge is able to direct a jury to convict upon agreed or admitted facts, even where any reasonable jury would be certain to convict.Guilty

Ward v Chief Constable of theWest Midlands(1997) CAWhole case here^[Juries role in civil trials to determine facts]D, the police arrested C for a public disorder offence. His action was for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. Cs claim failed.

Held: The judge had been wrong to leave to the jury questions of law such as the nature of "offensive conduct" or what might constitute "reasonable suspicion". The jury's role in civil trials is to determine matters of fact.

Appeal allowed, new trial ordered.

Ward v James[1965] CA

^[Tort remedies - not intended to punish - quantum not affected by degree of fault]Cs injuries resulted in quadriplegia when the car in which he was a passenger (in Germany) was involved in an accident.

Held: Lord Denning MR;"It (trial by jury) has been the bulwark of our liberties too long for any of us to seek to alter it. Whenever a man is on trial for serious crime or when in a civil case a manshonouror integrity is at stake... then trial by jury has no equal."Up to the year 1854 all civil cases in the courts of common law were tried by juries. There was no other mode of trial available. Since 1854 trial by jury in civil cases has gradually lessened.In personal injury cases trial by jury has given way to trial by judge alone unless the case is exceptionalBecause:1. Assessability, because personal injury damages to some extent are necessarily conventional and are based on a "tariff" known to lawyers;2. Uniformity, so that similar injuries would attract similar damages no matter in which court they were awarded;3. Predictability, to encourage the parties to settle their claim outside the court.

Willer, R v(1986) CA[Juries entitled to bring in their own verdict]D was charged with reckless driving. He had driven on the pavement in a shopping area to 'escape from a gang of youths'.The judge rejected his defence of necessity, so D changed his plea to guilty and the judge proceeded directly to sentencing, only (after being reminded) asking the jury foreman to declare a guilty verdict for the record.

Held: This was no mere quibble. It is of the utmost importance, to appreciate that once a person is put in charge of the jury, he can only come out of their charge by a verdict one way or the other.Watkins LJ:"We feel bound to say that it would have been for the jury to decide, if necessity could have been a defence at all in those circumstances, whether the whole incident should be regarded as one, or could properly be regarded as two separate incidents so as to enable them to say that necessity applied in one instance but not in the other. For that reason alone the course adopted by the assistance recorder was we think seriously at fault."Not guiltyAlso here

Wiltshire v Barrett[1966] CA^[Juries - comments by judges]C's car having been overtaken and stopped on the road by the police at 10.45 pm, defendant police constable arrested C on suspicion of being under the influence of drink and unfit to drive.The police doctor came to the conclusion that at that time plaintiff was not unfit to drive and he was released.C sued for false imprisonment following his wrongful arrest.Held: His action failed.Lord Denning said:"We all know how merciful some juries are to drivers who have been drinking. As often as not they acquit them. The jurors are inclined to say to themselves: There but for the grace of God go I. "Per Salmon, LJ: as a general rule, in circumstances such as these, the jurys verdict on the fact should be taken before the judge rules on submissions of law.Comment: This action was before the breathalyser. Drink driving is now a summary only offence.

Wilson &Sproson, R v(1995) CA[Juries selection - bias]DD were charged with robbery and held on remand, pending their trial, at a local prison where in the kitchens they came into contact with a prison officer. The prison officers wife was summoned to sit as juror at Ds trial. She had previously applied to be excused jury service because of her husband's work, but had been refused.

Held: There was a real danger that this juror might consciously or unconsciously have been biased.

Not guilty

Wilson,Kronlid, Needham, Zeltna,R v(1996)

[Juries role in cases perverse findings]Four women caused 1m worth of damage to a Hawk fighter jet. Theirdefencewas that the jet was to be sold toIndonesia, where it would be used against the people fighting for independence inEast Timor: their action was thus the prevention of the greater crime of genocide.

Held: They were acquitted by a jury at Liverpool Crown Court.

Young, R v[1995] CA

[Juries secrecy of deliberations does not include overnight]D committed two murders. During an overnight stay at a hotel, four of the jurors had apparently contacted one of D's alleged victims using anouijaboard, and had obtained information that lead to D's conviction.D was convicted by unanimous decisions on both counts.One of the jurors consulted a solicitor and provided a statement.Held: The statutory prohibition on inquiries into the jury's deliberations applied even to the Court of Appeal, but did not apply to events that occurred during the overnight break in their deliberations.The Court of Appeal ordered affidavits to be taken from each of the jurors and the two bailiffs who were looking after them as to what, if anything, happened at the hotel. But it was made clear that they were not to "breach" section 8 of the 1981 Act by trespassing on what happened during the jury's deliberations afterwards when they were in their retiring roomLord Taylor of Gosforth CJ:"We concluded having heard all the arguments that we were entitled to inquire into what happened at the hotel but not as to what happened thereafter in the jury room. Accordingly we ordered that affidavits should be taken from each of the 12 jurors and from the two bailiffs looking after them at the hotel. We asked the Treasury Solicitor to take charge of the inquiry in conjunction with a senior police officer of at least the rank of chief inspector. We required the affidavits to cover what if anything happened at the hotel, but not to breach section 8 of the Act of 1981 by trespassing on what happened during the jury's deliberations in their retiring room"

"Having considered all the circumstances, we concluded there was a real danger that what occurred during this misguided ouija session may have influenced some jurors and may thereby have prejudiced the appellant. For those reasons we allowed the appeal but ordered a retrial."Appeal allowed new trial ordered, guilty.The prohibition placed on the Court of Appeal was held to be wrong inConnor (and Rollock) and Mirza, R v(Conjoined Appeals) [2004] HL




Juries - introduction


Top of Form

Bottom of Form

[Home][Index - Lecture notes][Index - English Legal System][Index - Lay people][Juries][Juries - introduction]

| Cases on jurieshere|[Next]"Measure for Measure"

Shakespeare"The jury, passing on the prisoner's life,May in the sworn twelve have a thief or twoGuiltier than him they try."

The jury oathJurors swear an oath, or affirm, that they will "faithfully try the defendant and give a true verdict according to the evidence."

Judicial immunityJurymen are invested with judicial immunity. They have full judicial privilege and are not accountable for anything said or done in the discharge of their office, and any threats or abusive language directed towards them as jurymen is punishable as contempt of court.

Convention on Human Rights applies to juriesAs a judicial tribunal it must comply with the requirements of article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to a fair trial) which inGregory v United Kingdom (1997)the UK system was found to do.

Research into jury behaviour.It is a common law rule (supported bySection 8(1) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981) that no one (juror or not) to disclose details of what was said in the jury room, or for anyone other than a juror to try to obtain such details. To do is is an offence.This makes properly conducted research into the jury impossible, even by judges and academics. Although, Penny Darbyshire publishes some researchhere(pdf file)

The Auld ReviewSome of the recommendations of Lord Justice Auld's review in the Criminal Courts have been implement, for example jury selection, others have not, the relevant section of his report on juries ishere

Main legislation is the Juries Act 1974 as amended by theCriminal Justice Act 2003and theContempt of Court Act 1981

InR v Connor and Mirza (Conjoined Appeals) [2004]HL) it was revealed that only 1% of criminal cases is there a trial by a judge and jury.

[Next]


eNotessearch Homework Help Study Tools Downloads For Teachers Sign In JoinTop of Form

Bottom of FormHomework HelpWhat do you believe are the advantages and disadvantages to a trial with a jury?Topic:Law

deadrising|Student|eNotes NewbiePosted July 8, 2009 at 9:28 AM via webdislike4likeWhat do you believe are the advantages and disadvantages to a trial with a jury?11 Answers |Add Yours

prospero|College Teacher|(Level 2) Adjunct EducatorPosted July 8, 2009 at 11:47 AM (Answer #2)dislike0likeA trial is either by jury or a bench-trial (meaning by judge only).Juries have a way of letting emotion and circumstance influence their decision, whereas a judge might be much less inclined to focus on anything other than the correct legal result. For instance, if a defendant is on trial for murder, but claims that the act of killing was done in self-defense, the defendant may want to appeal to the jury members' emotions. Sometimes the evidence (witnesses, police reports, etc.)maynot completely support the defendant's case, but a sympathetic jury might still come back with a verdict of not-guilty.On the other hand,if the jury is not likely to sympathize with the defendant, but the evidence is strong in the defendant's favor, the defendant may prefer a bench trial. Perhaps there is strong evidence that the defendant did not commit this crime, but the defendant has a previous criminal record which could hurt his/her chances of success with a jury who does not like criminals.Whether to seek a trial by jury is ordinarily going to depend on the specific facts of the case-at-hand.

epollock|ValedictorianPosted July 8, 2009 at 3:19 PM (Answer #3)dislike0likeI would say the biggest disadvantage is that most jury members do not understand the laws that they have to follow nor do they understand the judge's instructions most of the time. I was actually on 3 juries back home in RI and members kept on asking me to explain some of the proceedings to them.

Susan Hurn|College Teacher|(Level 1) Educator EmeritusPosted July 8, 2009 at 9:16 PM (Answer #4)dislike0likeTrial by jury certainly doesn't guarantee a perfect path to justice, but it offers criminal defendants certain advantages--at least in theory. A majority of twelve people must be convinced of a person's guilt in order to convict, and a unanimous vote to convict is required in capital cases. For a defendant, there is safety in numbers. Getting a majority of twelve people or all twelve to agree to convict would be harder for a prosecutor, for instance, than working with a jury of six, eight, or even ten. The evidence would be compelling to accomplish a conviction. Also, twelve people from different walks of life bring a variety of expertise and life experience to the jury.Most of the disadvantages are rooted in this one fact: Jurors are human beings subject to human failings. Some are smart; some are not. Some are well educated; some are not. Some are open-minded; some are not. Some take responsibility seriously; some don't. Also, since avoiding jury duty has become a minor American art form, drawing a jury of one's peers is not always likely. Finally, a jury can suffer from "group think," composed of people who automatically accept the prevailing social and political thinking of the community or the area of the country in which they live.

Ashley Kannan|Middle School Teacher|(Level 3) Distinguished EducatorPosted July 21, 2009 at 6:59 AM (Answer #5)dislike0likeThe jury system is a reflection of the Framers' hopes in the Constitution. The theory of an active and concerned citizenry is a compelling one and it is very logical that such awareness would be what the Framers envisioned to assist in the determination of guilt of accused individuals. The theory might have some challenges in its practice, to which previous posts have alluded. Yet, the theoretical hopes of the Framers cannot be overlooked in seeing the potential positives of a jury system, despite how the reality might sometimes dissipate such hopes.

lhc|Middle School Teacher|(Level 3) EducatorPosted July 21, 2009 at 6:15 PM (Answer #6)dislike0likeThe fallibility of human beings as jurors, is probably the biggest disadvantage to the jury trial. Especially troubling to me as an educator is to consider the proliferation of grade inflation and the number of students we are sending out into the world who think they are really, really smart because they've never gotten anything but A's; it's easier to give students A's. It keeps "helicopter parents" at bay, and students tend to like these teachers better. The idea of having someone sitting on a jury who thinks of him or herself as really, really smart, when in fact he or she really, really isn't does not inspire confidence in thejudicial process as our Framers intended it to work.And we are sending a lot of really, really not-so-smart kids out into the world, thinking of themselves as geniuses. On a different note, I'll never forget hearing one of the jurors at the conclusion of the O.J. Simpson trial saying, among other things,"I had my reasonable doubts." This woman clearly had no idea that"reasonable doubt" is a serious and important legal concept, not a casual catch phrase. It was disheartening to know that in her mind, she had carried out her civic duty exactly as it was intended; while her efforts were no doubt sincere,she was clearly not understanding the gravity of the concept of reasonable doubt.

krishna-agrawala|College Teacher|ValedictorianPosted July 22, 2009 at 7:39 AM (Answer #7)dislike0likeAdvantages of trial by jury1. As there are many persons from different background, the individual prejudices are likely to cancels out.2. Juries represent the common public and therefore are more likely to judge in line with generally accepted values of the society.3. Discussions among juries is likely to lead to more thorough consideration of all aspects of the case.4. It is more difficult to corrupt 12 juries through than just one judge.Disadvantages of trial by jury1. The juries are not knowledgeable about the law.2. Juries do not have any special skill in giving judging cases.3. Since the decision by jury is a group decision, individual members of the jury may not feel that responsible about their duties and therefore neglect it.4. Juries may be swayed by the current prejudices in the society, which are not supported by law.

enotechris|College Teacher|(Level 2) Senior EducatorPosted October 28, 2009 at 12:20 PM (Answer #8)dislike0likeInstead of a jury, what then? Bench trials may have their purpose, like proceedings for a traffic violation, but for important civic and criminal proceedings, juries are the superior system, since involving a jury limits the power of the judge. For all the points mentioned, juries have their problems, but having the citizenry participate in court proceedings serves to underscore the principle of government by and for the people; in short, it is a democratic institution. Juries have to power to determine was is factual, and decide accordingly upon guilt or innocence; the judge states and executes the law. However, juries have a key power little discussed which provide a check on the other branches of government, namely, they have the power of nullification. Legislatures are, in theory, random collections of citizens that make laws. Juries are a random collection of citizens that may nullify law -- in other words, determine that a law broken in a civil or criminal proceeding should not be a law at all. This was to provide a judicial check on the legislature--that if a bad law is enacted, and people are put to trial because of it, even if guilty by the codification of the law, the jury can determine that no crime or civil infraction occurred because that particular law shouldn't exist, and their nullification effectively repeals that law. This power allows juries to exercise a check and balance and helps insure a well functioning democratic government.

frannii101|Student, Grade 10|eNotes NewbiePosted July 8, 2011 at 12:52 PM (Answer #9)dislike0likeHaving a jury is both an advantage and a disadvantage. One of the most important things about the jury system is the fact that it is supposed to remain an unbiased third party and be a cross section of society, representing numerous opinions and values of society. However this cannot be the case when you consider all the people that are not allowed to be on a jury. All the people eliminated, challenged, excused; all those who do not fit within the guidelines of being able to sit on a jury. Therefore the jury can never truly be a cross section of society.

rmagdale|College Teacher|eNotes NewbiePosted October 20, 2011 at 8:13 PM (Answer #10)dislike0likeAdvantages of trial by jury1. As there are many persons from different background, the individual prejudices are likely to cancels out.2. Juries represent the common public and therefore are more likely to judge in line with generally accepted values of the society.3. Discussions among juries is likely to lead to more thorough consideration of all aspects of the case.4. It is more difficult to corrupt 12 juries through than just one judge.Disadvantages of trial by jury1. The juries are not knowledgeable about the law.2. Juries do not have any special skill in giving judging cases.3. Since the decision by jury is a group decision, individual members of the jury may not feel that responsible about their duties and therefore neglect it.4. Juries may be swayed by the current prejudices in the society, which are not supported by law.This is an excellent post.

johnmc4|eNotes NewbiePosted December 10, 2011 at 4:50 AM (Answer #12)dislike0likeCould anyone tell me if the celebrity factor means famous defendants will always opt for a trial by jury ?

Let's take for example the Michael Jackson 1993 civil trial; the lawsuit reached a settlement before Jackson was about to testify; had there been no settlement, would Jackson's lawyers have opted for a trial by jury, trying to capitalise on Jackson's fame ?

Who decides whether it's a trial by jury or by judge ?

loraaa|Student|ValedictorianPosted January 1, 2012 at 5:39 AM (Answer #13)dislike0likeThis topic is very great, thank you very much for this good effort. I have benefited a lot from it. I wish everyone to benefit from this excellent topic. Thank you again....Join to answer this questionJoin a community of thousands of dedicated teachers and students.Join eNotesUpgrade for Fast AnswersWith an eNotes subscription, your questions get answered first by our expert eNotes Educatorsteachers who will help you move to the head of the class!Upgrade nowHomework HelpGet answers from eNotes educators.Ask a questioneNotes.com is a resource used daily by thousands of students, teachers, professors and researchers. We invite you to become a part of our community.Join eNotes|Become an eNotes EducatorRecommended Literature Study Guides Literature Lesson Plans William Shakespeare eTexts eNotes CommunityOther Useful Stuff Help About Us Contact Us API Jobs BlogConnect With Us 2014 eNotes.com, Inc. All Rights Reserved.Privacy|Terms of UseShare

A Level LawLaw made easy Homepage Videos Contact Polls Links Forums Home JuriesJuriesNotes:Jury Selection and QualificationJury full notesJury role in CourtAdvantages & Disadvantages of juryTask: Watch the video below and complete the worksheet at the same time, which is attached.Jury serviceA member of a jury listens to evidence and decides on the guilt or innocence of a defendant in a Crown court trial. They are part of a group of 12 jury member chosen totally at random from the electoral register.A jury member will receive a summons to do jury service which asks for detailed information about the citizen. This must be returned within 7 days. Jury service last for 10 working days. Trials last for on average between 2-3 days so jury members may sit on more than one case.Jury service is unpaid. However jury members can claim fortravel expenses, meals and loss of earnings. If the jury member does not turn up for jury service this will a criminal offence with a fine of upto 1000.The rules governing who can qualify to be a jury member are contained in theJuries Act 1974.Qualifications:1. Jury members need no formal qualifications or legal qualifications.2. Since the Criminal Justice Act 2003 judges, lawyers, police officers and doctors must also attend jury service.3. A jury member must be aged 18-69.4. Resident in UK, least 5 years since age 13 years.Task: Read theattached articleand write down:1. How many people are called for jury service each year?2. What is the proposed age limit for jury service?3. Why are the government seeking this change to the law?Disqualified:Serious criminal convictions, e.g. If been in prison in the last 10 years.Those on bail (Criminal Justice Act 2003).Excusal:( off list for 1yr)Right of excusalmeans you can legally decide not to sit as a jury member, e.g. military personnel and those that have sat on a jury in the last 2 years.Discretionaryexcusal can be applied for by anyone and it is upto the Jury Central Summoning Bureau (JCSB) to decide if they accept the reason, e.g. holiday, busy work or breastfeeding mothers.Ineligible:A jury member must be deemed to have sufficient capacity to sit on a jury as stated in the Juries Act 1974. Most people with disabilities can be accommodated on jury service. However those who are currently detained under theMental Health Act 2013in hospital cannot sit on a jury. Deaf people are also classed as lacking capacity to sit on a jury as they will need someone to help them manage and interpret the evidence and proceedings, the so called 13thjury member.Task: Read thefollowing articleand give two reasons as to why this may be a fair approach and two reasons that it may be unfair. Try thisarticleas well.Deferral:A jury member can apply to put the jury service off for upto upto 12 months, e.g. sitting examsSelectionThe key point about the choosing (selection) of each jury member is that it isentirely random. This makes it as free from bias and prejudice as possible leading to the fairest outcome to each trial.The Central Jury Summoning Bureau (CJSB) are the government organisation that are responsible for randomly finding jury members to sit in Crown courts, 45,000 in2008. They do this by using theElectoral roleof the area covered by each Crown court.The jury member is sent a jury summons and a form to complete asking for: Criminal record Any issues over being ineligible Any requests for excusal or deferral.The form is returned to the CJSB who will resolve any issues over disqualification, ineligibility, excusal or deferral.Jury vetting:If a jury member is known to have very bias political views then the CJSB can ask the police to check the jurors background though this rare, e.g. BNP or Communist party. This has been challenged on the grounds of being an invasion of privacy but the Court of Appeal said that it is lawful in the case of R v McCann.The CJSB then send the jury member a specific summons to attend court for 10 working days with a start date, normally a Monday.Once at court the jury clerk will choose 15 jury members at random, known as the jury in waiting, who are then taken to the court that they will sit on. The jury member names are written on cards that are shuffled randomly to ensure a fair and unbias choice. Finally, 12 are chosen from the 15 jury members to form the jury. If the case will last longer than the 10 days of jury service they will be given the option not to sit on this particular trial.Challenging a jury or jury member:1. Against entire jury for biased or unrepresentative selection either by the P or D:As seen in 1993: the "Romford" jury were excused because 9 out of the 12 came from Romford, with 2 living in the same street.2. Against an individual juror for cause by P or D: The challenging part must give a valid reason e.g. juror is disqualified or knows, (is related to) the defendant or a witness.3. By prosecution only: "stand by " juror : a right which enables such jurors to be put to the end of the list of potential jurors at court, and only used if there are not enough other jurors. This right should be used sparinglAll such challenges go against the idea of random selection. However, even the current process of random selection does not necessarily provide a cross-section of society. (As seen in the "Romford" jury case above).NOTE: There is no right to "hand-pick" the jury:R v Ford(1989) held there is no right to a multi-racial jury as long as jury chosen totally at random. This also applies to juries all of one gender.The Law on JuriesTo get top marks on jury questions, refer to the following statutes...When answering a question on...Refer to...

Qualification for jury serviceThe Juries Act 1974, as amended by the Criminal Justice Act 1988,states that jurors must: Be aged between 18 and 70 Be on the electoral register Be resident in UK for at least 5 years since the age of 13 Not have served a prison or community sentence in the last 10 years Never have served more than 5 years in prison Not currently be on bailThe Criminal Justice Act 2003disqualifies those suffering from a mental illness who are resident in hospital, or have regular treatment by a medical practitioner, from jury serviceThe Criminal Justice Act 2003also abolished excusal by right. This means that clergymen, lawyers, police officers and even judges qualify for jury service. The only group that has excusal by right those aged between 65 and 70. Anyone else wishing to be excused must apply to the court, and excusal will be at the courts discretion.

The role or function of a jury in a criminal trialThe Criminal Justice Act 1967states that a jury can deliver a majority verdict of 10:12 or 11:12 if they cannot reach a unanimous verdict.

Task: Complete the following question on the qualification of jurors, using the plan attached.

Question: June 2013: Describe how jurors qualify and are selected for service in a Crown Court trial .(10)Task: Complete the quiz onqualification and selectionof jurors in theCrown courtby following thislink.Work and role of juryWhat the jury doJuries are used in all serious criminal cases (indictable offences) and have the sole responsibility for determining guilt of the Defendant.

The jury member is first sworn in to work as a member of 12 randomly selected panel who listen to the evidence in criminal cases in the Crown Court. They have no formal qualifications Jurors must be listen to evidence from the prosecution and defence for which they can take written notes. They can also ask questions of witnesses through the judge. At the end of the case by the prosecution and defence closing speeches will be made and the judge will summarise the case and explain the relevant legal issues, including a structured set of questions to assist them if it is a difficult case.

The jurys function is to weigh up the evidence and decide what are the true facts of a case in Crown court. They then make either a guilty or not guilty verdict as to whether the D has committed the offence.The jury then retire to the jury room and elect a foreperson to speak to the court on their behalf. No reasons can be given for a jurys verdict.

How the jury come to a decisionTheContempt of Court Act 1981makes the disclosure of what happens in the jury room a criminal offence so no discussion of how the final decision is reached or what was discussed can be mentioned to anyone outside the jury.

Since theCriminal Justice Act 1967there are 3 verdicts a jury can give. A unanimous verdict is the verdict the judge will ask for at the end of the trial. If the jury cannot agree one verdict between all 12 of them then, after minimum of 2 hours, the judge can accept either a 10 out of 12 or 11 out of 12 verdict (about 20% of convictions each year).

The judges role in the case

The judge will try and explain the law in simple terms to the jury and direct them as to what evidence is important and acceptable when they are thinking of the innocence or guilt of the defendant.At the end of the prosecutions case or the whole case the judge may decide there isnt enough evidence for the defendant to be convicted beyond reasonable doubt and in these circumstances the judge will direct(tell) the jury to return a formal verdict of not guilty. This known as a directed acquittal.

However a judge cannot in any circumstances force a jury to make a guilty verdict, as confirmed in the case ofR v Wang. In this case Wang was charged with having an article with a blade or point in a public place, he was found with a Shaolin knife in his bag on a train station platform. His defence was he carried the knife to practice his Buddhist religion so evidence he owned the blade and therefore had committed the offence was beyond doubt. The judge directed the jury to find Wang guilty and the D appealed as a result. Wang argued that the jury should be allowed to decide on the evidence as to what a fair verdict was regardless of what the law says should be the outcome of the case. The appeal was allowed, the House of Lords agreeing with Wang and stating that no one is allowed to tell a jury to find a guilty verdict, including the judge.

Question:June 2009: Katie has been charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm, an either way criminal offence.Briefly describe the role magistrates and jurors play in her case (10)Advantages and Disadvantages of JuriesAdvantages of the Jury SystemLong established trial by peers which has public confidenceLord Devlin, a famous House of Lords judge, has said that trial by jury is the lamp that shows that freedom lives, arguing that a defendant has the right to be tried by his peers.Supporters of this view maintain that a jury will exercise common sense rather than slavishly follow the law. For example the case ofR v WangW was charged with having an article with a blade or point in a public place, he was found with a Shaolin knife in his bag on a train station platform. His defence was he carried the knife to practice his Buddhist religion so evidence he owned the blade and therefore had committed the offence was beyond doubt. The judge directed the jury to find Wang guilty and the D appealed as a result. Wang argued that the jury should be allowed to decide on the evidence as to what a fair verdict was regardless of what the law says should be the outcome of the case. The appeal was allowed, the House of Lords agreeing with Wang and stating that no one is allowed to tell a jury to find a guilty verdict, including the judge. A jury only have to make a decision based on what it fair and common sense and as they are not paid by anyone such as the government, they are free from political interference and bias.The fairness of an open trialThe Public also have confidence as the jury members are not trained and are trusted due to less professional involvement. 85% of those polled by theBar Councilin 2003 had confidence in jury verdicts showing that this system of delivering criminal justice is supported by a large section of society as being fair.For example inR v Kronlid and Others(1996) a group of people were charged with criminal damage to a Hawk Fighter Plane. They did so because the plane was going to be sold to the Indonesian government, and there was a high risk that they would use it to carry outgenocideagainst East Timor. The jury clearly believed that they were morally in the right, and so acquitted them.The jury decide the case in an open court so there can be no bias or no perception of bias in giving their verdict as any member of the public can watch. As it is a public duty for which jury members do not get paid their verdicts are seen as apolitical.Jury EquityThe jury only has to decide the case on their view of what is fair so unlike judges and lawyers the law is not as important. The word equity is simply another term for fair.For example in the case ofR v PontingThe case revolved around the Falklands conflict and the sinking of an Argentinian ship called theBelgrano, by a UK submarine. Clive Ponting, who had worked at the Ministry of Defence, walked free from court after a jury cleared him of breaking the Official Secrets Act. Ponting had been charged with leaking an internal MoD document concerning the General Belgrano, the Argentinian cruiser which British forces sank during the 1982 Falklands War, killing 360 people.The government line had been that the Belgrano was threatening British lives when it was sunk. But the document leaked by Ponting indicated it was sailing out of the exclusion zone. Its publication was a huge embarrassment for Lady Thatcher's government.The judge had indicated that the jury should convict him. It was hailed as a victory for the jury system as they clearly believed it was in the publics interest to hear about this allegation of a government cover up and therefore the jury must have felt such a public duty by Ponting should not be classed as a criminal offence, regardless of the judges or politicians views on the matter. The not guilty verdict was regarded as fair and equitable.The elimination of biasThe jury are chosen totally at random with no link to the case. Sitting as a group of 12 cancels out any potential bias from 1 member. Sir Sebag Shawsaid a jury is anonymous and independent and as jury service is a civic duty with no payment decisions are as free from external interference and bias as

advantages disadvantages

Documents

perverse jury verdicts

jury vetting

jury deliberations

jury secrecy

jury nobbling

perverse verdicts

majority verdicts

expense of jury trial