Category: Jury

In the English Legal System jury is a vital part it is used in the ‘Crown Court and Magistrates court to prove the guilt or innocence of those accused of violating criminal law’. The judge directs the jury to the relevant points and evidence and the jury’s role is to look over facts and give a verdict on the basis. Even though, the judge directs the jury to reach a decision, the decision whether prosecution has proven its case is always a matter for jury to decide. The history of jury system is one of the oldest traditions in legal system. The jury has been the ‘bulwark of the liberties’ of the individual against the state and is seen by many as an essential part of the criminal justice system in the England and Wales. The jury system has been used in legal system in the last 1,000 years now. The trial by jury seen by Lord Devlin for the country, he stated that “the lamp which shows that freedom lives”.

A jury is an essential part of a citizen’s right to a fair trial this is due to various reasons main one being that everyone has the right to defend themselves and prove their point. In the UK jury members are selected through the system of electoral register at random which gives highlights the fact the trial won’t be bias. A jury is a body of people who are chosen to sit in the court. They listen to the facts provided by defendant and prosecution and then decide whether the court has established beyond reasonable doubt for the criminal cases or not. And for the civil cases, they ensure that the claimant has established the balance of probabilities on the case, and defendant had committed the offence for which he/she is charged. The Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights states “everyone is entitled to a fair trial by jury of our peer”. Furthermore, jury will give a sympathetic hearing. The jury has no previous knowledge of case and can give an unbiased decision.

Juries are seen to decide on fairness not just the law. In R v Kronlid 1996, there were 3 women who broke onto a plane and caused £1.5 million worth of damage. They claimed the defense under section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967, which provides that it is lawful to commit a crime in order to prevent another (usually more serious) crime being committed. However, the women did make a 15-minute video explaining about their actions and left it in the cockpit. They were expected to be convicted, but the jury found them not guilty because it was mentioned that they were stopping the plane from arriving in East Timor to attack the survivors. Jury decided that their actions were reasonable, therefore the all three women walked away free. This indicates that jury in not biased, they do take decisions fairly and justly as here court was expected to consider them guilty for what they did but jury made a fair decision. However, the case on Ward v James (1966) established that juries will only be used in ‘exceptional circumstances’, the case of H v Ministry of Defense (1991) further reinforced this rule.

Trial by jury is seen as one of the fundamental elements of a democratic society. It helps to improve public confidence. The Jury equity decides on fairness and justice rather than just on the words of law. Linking this to R v Ponting 1985, where the defendant leaked confidential documents about the sinking of a ship to labor backbencher. He was prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act 1911. He was guilty but jury acquitted by him giving statement that the prosecution was politically inspired, and the jury also mentioned that pubic has a right to know about the actions and public interest. This means that the defended acted in good heart and convinced the jury about the actions taken during the incident were reasonable to do so. However, judge would only administrate the case facts and give the verdict. More to this, members of public are involved in jury which means there is open system of justice. This ensures that public knows what is happening and they can decide fairly and justly. Juries also have clear separation of responsibility as they divide work amongst themselves in the court and provide a better stability towards proceedings. Moreover, jurors are given opportunity to decide about case and facts in the secrecy room. This is very beneficial as there would be no outsider to influence or pressure them on their decision. This could be in favor of fair trails for the citizens.

Moreover, the jury system gives public a chance to get involved in legal process. According to Lord Denning, he described jury service as “giving ordinary folks their finest lesson in citizenship”. It is also said that juries are the best judges of the facts. This means that jurors have better knowledge of what is happening instead of the judges or magistrates. As said, “most jurors only serve once, they should approach their cases relatively fresh and with an open mind, unlike judges and magistrates”. This shows that jurors are taking decisions with open mind and ensuring that fair decisions are been made, unlike judges and magistrates. Under Juries Act 1974, there is been selection of jury amongst public. There are three conditions to meet before getting selected for the jury. Firstly, the person must be aged between 18- 70, have lived in the UK for at least 5 years since they were 13 years old and is registered to vote. After this, the person’s name appears on the electoral register. This gives them an opportunity to get involved in a trial of the case and after looking at the facts and evidences of the case, make a fair, reasonable decision.

One of the important advantages could be that a group of 12 people would decide better than 1. The 12 jurors would be sharing wide range of opinions to come up with a final decision whereas, a single person called judge would only have legal perspective. Obviously, the decision of jury would be made once they heard majority of votes, not like 1. If the defendant is see doing something with a good intention, jury might acquit the defendant, whereas judge will only see the legal side of the case. This would be considered as a fair decision rather than being biased.

Jury tampering also called nobbling is a criminal offence where jury is being influenced through other means in criminal and civil proceedings. The other means include, threats or asking acquaintances to interfere with a juror, offering bribes, having conversation with the jurors outside the courtroom. In other words, Jury tampering may lead to the trial by judge. In the case of R v Twomey & other 2009, the defendants were four men convicted for £1.75m armed robbery at Heathrow marks. There were allegations of jury tampering at the trial as the case first had criminal trial in a Crown Court without a jury. In the second trial, jury was not able to reach a verdict. However, for the third trial it was being said that prosecution alleged the jury had been tampered. The senior circuit judge, Calvert-Smith J said that “there was a ‘real and present danger’ that jury tampering would happen again at retrial”. Due to this, jury was not allowed to sit for the third trial which means the decision was only taken by judge which was more based on legal side than opinions. It could be said that maybe due to this the decision was biased, not fair.

Even though jury is essential there are things which could be improved. These would be considered as the disadvantages of the jury system. Firstly, the jurors are selected under the jury service which means any random person could be selected. This means that there might be lack of skills. As Lord Denning suggested that “jurors should not be selected at random but should be selected in much the same way that magistrates are, with interviews and references required”. This would improve the decision-making skills of the jury as a whole. Moreover, there are people who are unable to deal with the atmosphere of the courtroom, they may be nervous or have any disability and could not take decision related to the case. This occurred in R v Chapman (1974) where the juror was deaf, and he sat through the trial without hearing any evidence or facts of the case during trial. The Court of Appeal decided that the juror had not prejudiced the trial and therefore the decision stood. After this case, Lord Denning said that there must be suitability test to be introduced to decide whether someone is able to perform as a juror or not.

Furthermore, when there are high profile cases trials in courts the media coverage could influence because they are more likely to been seen highlighted in media for enough time before the case even comes to the court. This could make difficult for the jury to finalize a decision as they might have been listening outside the courtroom. It could happen that jurors maybe are corrupted by the outside influence and end up taking wrong decisions. However, if jurors discuss or look up for the ongoing case on social media, they might end up facing criminal liability for this.

There can be some racist jurors in the criminal trials. However, “Article 6 of the ECHR confers the right to a fair trial by an impartial tribunal”. During the trial, racist jurors can make racist comments towards the victim. In the case of Sander v UK (2001), where an Asian man was accused of fraud was denied a fair trial because judge refuse to discharge him after juror made racist comments. Later, he accepted that he made racist comments, but he denied being racist.

Despite all the disadvantages, the jury system still is an advantage for the public as many people get justice just because of the jury. It is successfully used since thousands of years and is providing justice to many cases.

Bibliography

1. Matthew D, Blackstone’s Statutes on Criminal Law 2019-2020 (9th edition, Oxford University Press 2019).
2. Steven R and others, English Legal System (3rd edn, Oxford University Press 2018).
3. Wilson et al, English Legal System (Chapter 10, The Jury and pages 282-284).

A jury is defined as a body of persons convened by the process of law to represent the public at a trial and to “discharge upon oath or affirmation defined public duties”. The main act that governs the jury system is the Jury Act 1974, which were largely amended by the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The notion of including a jury dates to 1215 and the notions that had been derived from Magna Carta have only been reformed a few times in history. “No freeman shall be taken or/and imprisoned, or disseised, or exiled, or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor will we send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or/and by the law of the land”. This phrase is translated from the famous Clause 39 of Magna Carta and claims that a trial by jury has been ‘enshrined’ as a constitutional right, this myth was later derived from Devlin by many other authors as he put forward this claim in 1956. However, the clause itself has been pointed out as having nothing to do with trial by jury and legal historian Cornish explains that it has always been “bad history to trace the jury system back to Magna Carta”. The interpretation of clause 39 has had vast effects on English constitutional history due to these errors with misinterpretation.

There are arguments that both support and criticize the use of a jury in courts, some due to tradition and others due to opinion, however, neither lead to a clear decision on whether the jury should be abolished. A jury system within court holds many advantages, when being tried by a jury, instead of being tried by a single judge or magistrate, instead it is the idea that you are being held before your peers who may be able to relate to personal circumstances. The verdict in cases being held in front of a jury, in most cases need to be a unanimous decision, all members of the jury need to agree whether the defendant is innocent or guilty or there must at least be a majority vote of 10 out of 11 or 9 out of 10 jurors, as the jurors must be impartial. A jury vary rarely knows much about the legal procedure and are therefore not as ‘case-hardened’ as Judges would be. The idea that with twelve jurors, a wide variety of opinions and input is culminated together in the final decision, is reasonable as in retrospect twelve heads are better than one as a single judge only has one viewpoint and this is purely of the legal perspective. A decision can be made on what seems right and not whether the offence is illegal or not, as a judge can only administer a verdict based on the facts laid before whereas a jury can decide based on their opinion and reflection of their own life experiences. The main idea of a jury is to allow public participation in that the ordinary citizen can take part in the administration of justice which in turn satisfies the constitutional tradition of judgement by one’s peers. Lord Denning described jury service as giving “ordinary folk their finest lesson in citizenship” and these verdicts are those of society rather than the judicial system. “A trial by jury is more than just an instrument of justice… it is now been regarded as the lamp that shows that freedom lives”, this was a statement put forward by Lord Devlin in 1956, and the question is, can these views still be applied to a legal system today. Although there are some compelling reasons as to why a jury is a substantial benefit to the criminal justice system, it seems that the disadvantages significantly outweigh that of the advantages.

The jury evokes extreme views, whether it be that trial by jury is an ‘ancient right’ and a ‘bastion of liberty’, meaning that the ordinary person’s common sense and their views can inform decisions and contain the powers of government. Or, the idea that the jury is regarded as a “costly, sometimes incompetent anachronism that merely creates opportunities for ‘professional’ criminals at a great public expense”. It appears that the latter has become a view that has gained substantial support and it shows in that the English jury has declined massively as they have been overly expensive and takes up too much valuable time. “The jury is an anti-democratic, irrational and haphazard legislator, whose erratic and secret decisions run counter to the rule of law” and is far from being Devlin’s “little parliament”, as the jury is the very antithesis, “unaccountable and its decision is designed to permit no argument”. Court proceedings today have shown a decrease in juries and they have already been making less of an appearance with many interests in crime control and efficiency along with the growth in the number of criminal trials.

One of the more prominent problems of using a jury in court is that they are laymen in the administration of justice, and this can show potential that a mistake must occur in some trials. A study conducted of 370 trials at Birmingham Crown Court in the late 1970’s inevitably showed three harrowing results in that 25% of all acquittals were questionable, 5% of the convictions were questionable and that there was significant evidence that some trials were racially biased. The claims that the jury has often been perceived as racist with cases that can prove this notion. In the case of Sander v UK, in which the jury were making explicit racist remarks and jokes throughout the trial and therefore, should have been discharged by the judge for these actions.

Many believe that the way in which a jury is selected can potentially be one of the main reasons as to why there is currently an increase in racial bias within a jury. A jury is selected from individuals registered on the electoral role. However, this gives there a limit on a cross selection of society members. There are also many people of the younger generation that have not registered themselves to vote, and the number of young adults who are registering to vote has been decreasing each year. Those who are not a British UK national are unable to vote, and therefore are not on the electoral role to be chosen, thus making those who are in the random selection is not completely multi-cultural.

Media coverage has been known to sway the proceedings of a jury. The media itself indirectly influences an individual and their opinions on certain aspects of everyday life, including that of a potential jury. It is not often that jury will be present for all high-profile cases, but they are present for some. The media is known to place misconceptions and wild accusations in order to make the news sell, whether the information they provide be misleading, vicious or prejudice, the impact that social media has on individuals is suffocating. A case in which the media had high influence over jurors and misleading them was in that of R v Taylor and Taylor. The case involved two sisters who were charged with murder, a local and newspaper published a picture from a video which gave the public a false impression of the case. In which the Court of Appeal decided that the best form of action to take is to squash the verdict of the jury for the possibility that their opinion had been influenced by the media coverage.

The jury is often viewed as a ‘little parliament’ and known to be democratic, it acts as a barrier for state power which can include their oppressive prosecution. Jurors also bring their own equity to the table, allowing their own life experiences to help guide them towards their judgement. However, this can be harmful to a case as a juror’s equity can also convict the innocent. A study was released in 2007, showing just how many times a jury would give an incorrect verdict. Bruce Spencer conducted a study in order to investigate the accuracy of a jury’s verdict. By studying jury verdicts statistically, he found that out of 271 cases from four different areas, one out of eight cases were found to have wrong jury verdicts.

Not only is there a possibility of a jury being wrong, there is also the fact that a juror does not have the training that is required to better understand complex law. The jury is briefed about the case before the trial commences and are then led through the case as the trial goes on.

A further reason as to why the jury system can be a disadvantage is that some trials can be very traumatic to the jurors. This was evident after the trials of the James Bulgar case, in which all jurors had to receive counselling once the trial was over. The significance of the case being so sensitive cause mental harm on the jurors in having to convict an individual as young as ten years old for such a horrific crime to a child of the age of two.

Roskill (1986) concluded that a trial by random jury was not a satisfactory way of achieving justice as many of the jurors were “out of their depth”. Roskill was led to this conclusion due to their inexperience or ignorance. Jurors can often rely too heavily on what they are told by lawyers at the expense of the real issues. This is evident in a New Zealand trial in 1999 which suggested jurors had serious problems understanding key legal terms like ‘Intention’ and ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. This lack of competence had raised reasonable concerns especially seeing as a jury also had issues in the understanding of complex fraud cases.

Corruption within a jury can cause a substantial number of problems, threats and bribery have previously been used as means of persuading a juror to give the non-guilty verdict. In 1982, there were several (Old Bailey) trials that came to a halt when the jury was in suspicion of accepting bribes and/or being threatened in order to give a certain verdict. In order to tackle these problems, the Criminal Procedure and Investigation Act 1996 introduced a new offence of intimidating or threating to harm jurors.

There are ways in which the use of a jury can be improved in order to tackle the many disadvantages that have been highlighted above. The idea that a jury is too incompetent due to their knowledge of law and the complexity of many phrases used during trials can be dealt with by getting a jury to partake in an exercise in which the case is explained in detail, the meaning of the key words that are going to be used, and also what the court already knows about the defense and how they are going to proceed during the trial. This will ensure that everyone has a clear understanding of the case, rather than relying on the words of the lawyers and will eliminate any misconceptions that could potentially affect the ending verdict. Each individual will have a different conception of crime and different beliefs on how a crime should be deal with, the means of dealing with this would be an attitude survey that should be taken before the trial commences, the survey will determine the view point of each juror and will help explain how they would interpret a crime in different communities and provide an explanation for the different conviction rates in court trials with a jury present. A way to see how media coverage on high profile cases and the effect it had on the jurors would be to collect information and establish what types of media reports were most difficult for jurors to put out of their minds as the trial was going on and to determine the nature of pre-trial media reports they recall.

In consideration to all the information given above, there are balanced views on whether the jury system should be retained or abolished. There are quite a few disadvantages to the system that could inevitably be resolved if the correct reforms were to take place, especially one considering the confusion of a juror to the technical terms that are often used in a case that would be difficult for those without a criminal law knowledge to comprehend.

Overall, it seems that most information leads towards the idea that a jury should be abolished, the disadvantages highly outweigh the support that is given as to why the jury should be retained, however, keeping the jury system in its current condition would not be beneficial to the criminal justice system. There are quite a few reforms that would need to take place in order to ensure that the jury system would remain to be unbiased, and truthful in their opinion on a case.

There are a few variables that cannot be controlled, today there are many ways to access the internet and have all information that could potentially sway an individual’s opinion quite literally at their fingertips. With today’s technology, keeping a juror away from any media outlets could be virtually impossible. The media has too much of a hold on each individual and will continue to be influenced by it every day.

Another variable that cannot be controlled is what is discussed in the room when a jury is coming to a verdict, there is no way to tell if any other individual let their personal opinion known and caused others to change their minds and agree rather than stay true to their own opinion as no matter how independent an individual can seem to be, there is always a chance of peer pressure and conforming to the popular belief getting in the way.

As the movie’s title suggests, ‘Runaway Jury’ is a story of the independent body of juror who are on a case. The movie opens with a scene of shooting in an industrial building. The case involves a lawsuit of a widow and gun making company since her husband was killed in gunfire incident because the deadly weapon was easily accessible. The wife then hires a lawyer against the gun manufacturers and the defense hires a lawyer. The movie however takes an interesting twist where the focus is put on jury selection process and on the insides of the jury’s decision-making process.

A woman on the outside attempted to make a bribe with Fitch who was hired by Cable (on the gun manufacturer’s side) asking 10 million dollar and she would help him by swinging jury’s decision in his favor. She had a different agenda along with one of the jurors, juror number 9, who was also her boyfriend. Since she was able to predict jury’s move all the time, she tried to contact Fitch, she gained his trust for what it led to making the deal. By the end of the movie, the jury makes a decision in the favor of plaintiff which was also their potential aim along with having those 10 million dollars. Turned out that Marlee (who made the deal) had some personal enmity which timed back to about 10 years ago in her hometown when she lost her sister in a shooting and Fitch helped the gun manufacturer to win the case.

The movie is a very precise and accurate reflection of Jury selection process however it is contaminated and unreal to be applied in a true legal system. When it is time to be on the jury trial, anyone is eligible to be on the jury (conditions applied). ‘Runaway Jury’ heavily focused on the jury selection process however; they do neglect the core principles of the jury, primarily impartiality. There have been many scenes which were clearly evidence of misconducts and biasness. Scene where jurors were seen having lunch on the outside of the courthouse and especially the judge paying for the meal is clear example of being influenced. Also, Mr. Rohr not reporting the deal offered to buy the jury’s decision was an act of misconduct.

Several other issues like collecting information on the jurors and threatening them to sway their decision in defendant’s favor. Such a thing is not likely to take place in an actual jury trial in real life which has access to juror’s personal life and even to their house to manipulate the decision. This was taken to an extent where a member of the defendant’s side breaks in Nick’s house to gather information in their defense. Subsequently, when it was revealed to the lawyer, no action was taken to look into this matter, which might not happen in legal system in real life. Our text does state that the lawyers may not have any contact outside of the courthouse with the juror and have no access to any personal information.

The movie has posed as unethical in selecting jury members since Nick who is one of the juror’s is rather more influenced than his own personal feelings and prejudice along with his significant other on the outside instead of the evidence that is presented in the courthouse. There are a lot of things that pose threat to an important characteristic of the jury’ impartiality and personal bias is one of them. The whole movie revolves around some of the major ethical issues in the jury systems that are deemed of utmost importance.