Juries in Criminal Trials

Introduction

The purpose of this essay is offer a panorama of potential changes in the jury system of England and Wales. In doing so, the essay will evaluate the effects of these changes and illustrate the advantages and disadvantages of the jury system in criminal trials.

The Jury

The presence of a jury in trials represents the “cornerstone of the English Legal system” . Michale Mansfield identifies in the jury the concept of democratic accountability by saying: “it is the most democratic element of our judicial system and the one that poses the biggest threat to the authorities” . The reason for this is that it embraces the idea of being judged by one’s peers in indictable criminal trials.

Arguments for and against the jury

There are few reasons why some people are not in favour of the adoption of a jury in criminal trials. Entrusting legal decisions to 12 ordinary individuals without legal knowledge and competences is sometimes considered risky. Without appropriate legal training it is straightforward to assume that jurors will not be able to wholly perceive the importance of their position and the responsibility that derives from it.

On the contrary, those in favour of the jury system exalt the importance of the random selection of jurors that give people access to justice . Democracy and fairness seem more protected thanks to the involvement of the public in trials . In the case of Bushel’s case jurors are described as a fundamental element that avoids oppressive or political motivated prosecutions. This idea also appears in R v Ponting where the Defendant, a civil servant, was acquitted by the jury after having passed delicate information to a journal. He was accused of breaking the Official Secrets Act 1920 but the conscience of the jury acquitted him .

Despite the feeling of fairness that derives from the presence of a jury, the fact that jurors are not required to give explanations of their verdicts may lead to unpleasant verdicts . Although the decision of the jury may represent an unreasonable result, the jury still maintains complete power in deciding the case . For instance, in the case of R v Owen, the jury held the Defendant not liable for attempted murder despite evidence shew the opposite . The same result was held in the notorious case of R v Randle & Pottle . Although the parties admitted their involvement in the escape of the spy George Blake, the jury held both Defendants not liable .

Jury secrecy

In 1986, the Roskill Committee clearly stated that “trial by random jury was not a satisfactory way of achieving justice ”. This point of view derives from the consideration of the veil of secrecy that protects jurors. The ultimate deliberation of the jury comes from the impenetrable secret room of jurors . The secrecy that protects the room may represent a cause of isolation from the public, rather than a guaranty of democracy .

Perverse Verdicts

Those that criticise the jury system identify two main reasons why jurors may achieve an unfair sentence. One is the lack of competences and the inability to properly understand the issue of the case. The second one is the personal conscience of each juror that may lead them in not taking responsibility before difficult cases . Due to the concern of reaching perverse verdicts, the Auld Review pointed out the importance not to acquit Defendants in disregard of the evidence or in defiance of the law . The Review authorises judges and Court of Appeal to take part to the investigation of potentially improper verdicts made by the jury .

Recruitment of juries

In What Next in the Law? published in 1982 Lord Denning identified in the wide selection of jurors the issue. The appointment of non-competent individuals may lead to unfair results. During the case of R v Young, an Ouija board was adopted in order to get in touch with the deceased. Lord Denning’s idea was to select the jurors by doing proper interviews and requiring references . Although the reasoning behind Lord Denning’s idea may seem justified, the values of fairness and equality on which the jury system is based may be undermined. The selection of jurors with peculiar characteristics would close the access to the jury system only to a narrow category of people and invite bias .

Sentencing power

After the adoption of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, several changes have been introduced in the criminal system . The sentencing power of magistrates’ courts has been increased to twelve months. The purpose was to reduce the number of cases able to reach the crown court and light the pressure on it . Lord Chief Justice (LCJ) has expressed this proposal when dealing with the fraud case of R v Raymen t that lasted two years and cost £60 million .

Abolishing Juries

Most of civil cases do not require the presence of a jury anymore. The abolishment of the jury has not had adverse effect. Juries are involved in only one per cent of criminal cases. Therefore, they should be removed. The abolishment of the jury would reduce costs and accelerate trials. If magistrates would have complete powers in criminal cases, the trust of the public in the achievement of a competent result would improve. Judges are currently required to guide the jury and lead them to the right result by explaining the law in the light of the facts of the case.

Conclusion

This essay has illustrated how controversial and ambiguous the jury system is. The advantages to have a jury may also be seen as a limit in achieving fair results. Despite the opinions in favour or against, the jury system remains a substantive and significant means of accountability to the public. The fact that the jury is now used only in minor cases may be seen a sign of need of reform. The jury system should be rethought and developed instead of being abolished entirely.

Bibliography

CPS Statement – R v Rayment and others, 22/03/2005, CPS Website at http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/latest_news/119_05/

David Kirk ‘Journal of Criminal law’ [ 2008] A Tale of two Juries vol. 72 Opinion- JCL 72(1)

Elliott and Quinn, English Legal System (2011-12) 12th Edition Pearson Publishing

Hunt, M. Cases and Materials on As Level Law 1st Ed ( London: Sweet & Maxwell Limited 2004)

Martin Hunt, Cases and Materials on As Level Law (2004) THOMSON Publishing

Pattenden, R. ‘International Evidence of Proof’ [2007] vol.11 (2) Notice Board IJEP 11 2 (139)

Slapper and Kelly, the English Legal System (2011-12) 12th Edition Routledge Publishing

Cases

Bushel’s case (1670) 124 ER

R v Ponting [1985] crim LR 388

R v Owen [2003] 1 S.C.R 779

R v Randle and Pottle [1991] 1 WLR 1087

HM Attorney General v Seckerson & Anor [2009] EWHC 1023

R v Clark [2000] EWCA crim 54

R v Cannings [2004] EWCA crim 01

R v Rayment and others (2005)

R v Young [1995] QB 324