ROLE OF THE JURY
CRIMINAL CASES



The Jury is used in less than 5% of Criminal Cases.
Juries are used in criminal cases in the Crown Court where the defendant pleads
not guilty.
There is a split function between the jury and the judge;
The jury decides the facts;
The judge decides the law;
 The jury decides the verdict, guilty or not guilty:
 The judge decides the sentence.
The judge cannot place pressure upon the jury (Bushell’s case (1670) ‘juries cannot be
ordered to convict against their conscience’. R v McKenna (1960)
Independent and free from pressure.
Despite this they are still seen as symbolically important and fundamental part of the
English Legal System.
The jury’s verdict can be unanimous or after necessary deliberation, by a majority of 10 to
2 or 11 to 1.
Where the verdict is by majority, s.17(3) Juries Act 1974 states that the foreman of the jury
must state the verdict.








Hung Jury?
CIVIL JURIES
 Less
than 1% of civil cases are tried by jury.
 In civil cases the jury decides the issue of
liability and also the amount of damages to be
paid.
 There are a number of problems



Juries may be biased against newspapers or well
known personalities involved in libel cases.
The amount of damages is unpredictable and
inconsistent.
Juries add heavily to the costs of the case. The losing
party is likely to face a bill of hundreds and thousands
of pounds.
JURIES – SELECTION
USE OF JURIES
 There
is a limited use of juries in civil cases in the High
Court and County Court. The only civil cases in which
there is a right to jury trial under The Supreme Court
Act 1981 are:
Defamation of Character.
 False Imprisonment.
 Malicious Prosecution.
 Fraud Cases

CORONERS COURT
Juries are used in the Coroners’ court to enquire into the
deaths occurring in prison, police custody, industrial
action.
 To identify the person who died and secondly, how,
when and where the person died.

JURY QUALIFICATION
Set out in the Jury Act 1974.
 To qualify for jury service you must be:

Aged between 18 and 70
• Registered to vote on the Register of Electors.
• Resident of the UK, Channel Islands or the Isle of Man for
at least five years since their 13th birthday.
• Not disqualified
•
JURY DISQUALIFICATION
 In
addition, people are disqualified from
jury service if they:
 Have a serious conviction
 Have served a prison sentence in the last 10
years
 Mentally disordered persons (CJA 2003)

Are currently on Bail.
INELIGIBLE TO SERVE ON A JURY
Those suffering from mental disorder or who are not
capable of managing their affairs.
 The judiciary



Others who are concerned in the administration of justice
within the last 10 years.


Can now be selected for jury service under the Criminal Justice
Act 2003
Can now be selected for jury service under the Criminal Justice Act
2003
Religious Ministers and Members of Religious
Communities.

Can now be selected for jury service under the Criminal Justice Act
2003
RIGHT TO BE EXCUSED FROM JURY SERVICE.
 These
include:
Those over the age of 65.
 Those who have been on jury service during the past 2
years.

 Used
to include:
Members of Parliament.
 Members of the Medical Profession.
 Members of the Forces.



These rights were removed by Criminal Justice Act 2003
Those with religious beliefs that are incompatible with jury
service.
DISCRETIONARY EXCUSAL
 This
will only be granted if there is a good
reason;

Too ill to attend
 Jury
service can also be deferred where the
date given is inconvenient.
Because of examination
 Or important business commitments.
Can be deferred once must be re-taken within a
12 month period.

SELECTION OF JURY PANEL
 Names
are selected at random from the electoral
register for the area in which the court is situated.
 The selection is done by computer at the Central
Summoning Bureau.
Jury then chosen at random where clerk calls out 12
names.
 Those names chosen may be vetted for criminal
convictions via the police computer data of criminal
records.
 In exceptional cases, a juror’s background and political
affiliation may be vetted.
 This should only occur in cases involving national
security or terrorism.

CHALLENGES

Both the prosecution and the defence can challenge individual
jurors for cause; s.12 Juries Act 1974.


Where the potential juror has had previous dealings with the defendant or
has been involved in the case some way.
There can also be a challenge to the array;


The whole jury panel on the basis that it was chosen in an unrepresentative
or biased way; s.5 Juries Act 1976.
However, the fact that a jury does not contain any ethnic minority jurors is
not a ground for challenge. (R v Ford (1989) this case is authority for
preventing any meddling with the composition of jury panels, whether for
reasons of race or sex.
The prosecution may stand by individual jurors until the jury has
been empanelled, without giving a reason, but this right should
be used sparingly;
 The judge may discharge any juror whom he thinks lacks the
capacity to act effectively as a juror; (s.9 Juries Act 1974).

PROBLEMS WITH SELECTION
 Not
all people are registered to vote e.g young
ethnic minorities are homeless

The use of the electoral register excludes these.
 Although
the selection is random, this may not
produce a cross-section of society.
 Discretionary excusals
 Vetting is considered an invasion of privacy, but
the Court of Appeal has ruled that it is lawful. (R v
Mason (1980).
ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES
Advantages
Disadvantages
Public Confidence
Tried By Peers
No Legal knowledge and
12 strangers
Jury Equity
Decide cases on the presumption Can reach perverse
of fairness – Kronlid and Others
judgment which is not
and Ponting’s Case
justified – R v Randle and
Juries act in sympathy –
R v Owen 1992
Pottle
Openness
Public is involved in the
justice process
No reason given for
verdict
Verdict made in private
no-one can inquire what
has happened in the jury
room.
Secrecy
Jury free from pressure and
No-way of knowing if jury
undue influence from outside understood case – see R v
Young
S8 Contempt of Court Act 1981
ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES
Impartial
Advantages
Disadvantages
Randomly
selected – cross
section of
society
Not so if vetted.
Number of excusals available means
that it may not be a true reflection
society.
Bias
Some jurors could be biased against
the police or a certain ethnic group.
Sander v UK
Media
May influence the Jury see R v
Andrews, R V Taylor and Taylor
1993 – this can interfere with right
to a fair trial Art 6 ECHR
Jury’s inability to
understand the law
Runcimann Commission (1992)
10% of Jurors found it difficult to
understand what’s going on.
ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES
Advantages
Disadvantages
Fraud Trials
Notoriously Complex
Roskill Committee (1986)
recommended the abolish of jury
trial in such cases
Jury Nobbling
Known to occur, however, if
evidence of this then case can be
heard by Judge alone CJA 2003
Expense
Slow and Expensive
Jury Service
Compulsory nature unpopular
ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES – CIVIL CASES
Civil Cases
Advantages
Disadvantages
Amount of damages
Unpredictable – see Grobbelaar
Unreasoned decision
No reason for award of such
high damages.
Cost
Jury Trial – Slow and Expensive
Bias
Jury Biased against
newspapers/magazines – see
Grobbelaar
PROPOSAL FOR REFORMS
 Review
of Criminal Courts (2001) known as the Auld
Review because it was conducted under the Sir
Robin Auld.
Jurors to be more widely representative of the
communities they represent, aim of the Jury provisions in
the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
 Provisions should be made to enable ethnic minorities
representation of on juries where race may become an
issue.
 The jury have no right to acquit defendants in defiance of
the law, see R v Kronlid & R Ponting.
 Where the jury’s verdict appears to be perverse the
prosecution should be granted an Appeal see R v Kronlid
& R Ponting.

PROPOSAL FOR REFORMS

The defendant no longer have an elective right to trial
by judge and jury in “either way” cases
However, both the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bills were
defeated in the House of Lords.
 Trial for serious offences should remain to be heard by judge
and jury.


Unless the defendant elects for Judge only.
FRAUD TRIALS
In 1986 the Roskill Committee on Fraud Trials
recommended that serious and complex fraud trials should
be decided by judge and two lay members that have
specialist knowledge.
 The Government of the day declined the
recommendations of the Roskill Committee and instead
introduced procedures to make it easier to follow such
complex cases.
 For example, George Walker former chief executive of
Brent Walker who was found not guilty of a £19 million
fraud charge, is reported as stating that he was sure the
jury hadn’t properly understood much of the highly
detailed material in the trial, as he admitted “I did not
understand a lot of it, so I can’t see how they could.”

FRAUD TRIALS
Sir Robin Auld recommended that in serious and complex fraud
trials, the nominated trial judge should have the power to direct
the trial himself and two lay members drawn from the panel
established by the Lord Chancellor or if the defendant
requested it, by judge alone.
 The White Paper proceeding the Criminal Justice Act 2003
claimed that the 15 – 20 complex fraud trials heard annually
were best dealt with by a judge sitting alone.


Section 43 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 allows the prosecution to
apply for a serious or complex fraud trial on indictment.
The court must be satisfied that the length and complexity of the trial is likely
to prove burdensome upon a jury;
 These can also include other complex and lengthy trials.
 Therefore in the interests of justice serious consideration must be given to
conducting a trial without jury.

12 ANGRY MEN (1957)