Juries

Ever since trial by ordeal was condemned by the church in 1215 and the Magna Carta was signed that year, which recognised a person’s right to a fair trial by ‘the lawful judgment of his peers, juries became the preferred method of criminal trial. Originally used only to provide local knowledge and act as witnesses to court proceedings, over time they assumed more independent roles and became deciders of fact by the 15^th century (Martin, J: 2010 111).

The need for independence of the jury became apparent and firmly established after the Bushell’s Case in 1670, which saw the government having failed to imprison Sir William Penn for treason, attempted to prosecute his Quaker son for "leading a dissident form of worship." 10 Judges tried to pressure the jury to convict and when they did not, starved them for 2 nights, then fined and imprisoned them until they paid. They obtained a writ of habeas corpus and the Court of Common Pleas ordered their release ruling they should not be punished for their not guilty verdict. More recently, R v McKenna 1960 saw a judge threaten to imprison the jury for the night if they did not return a verdict within 10 minutes, the jury then returned a guilty verdict, resulting in the defendant’s conviction being quashed upon appeal as a result of the Judges influence (Ibid 111) (sixthformlaw.info 2012).

According to Professor Andrew Sanders research on British Crime Survey statistics 2001, public confidence in trial by jury is high and it is considered the best system for criminal court proceedings. Trial by Jury is considered the corner stone of a democratic societies’ legal system. They allow for ordinary people to play a part in the legal system to allow for a fair trial by their fellow man/woman, to asses witness credibility and evidence. No legal experience is required as the judge directs the jury on any points of law and explains them in simple terms, arguably juries could be swayed by the Judges comments. The judge may also direct the jury to acquit the defendant under certain circumstances (sixthformlaw.info 2012).

Juries are used not only in criminal cases at the crown court to asses evidence, witnesses and decide guilty or not guilty verdicts, on the rare occasion some civil cases at the county court and high court may also request a trial by jury for cases like deformation of character, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution and any case involving fraud to decide liability and amount of damages to be awarded. Up until 1854 all common law actions were tried by a jury, after this both parties could agree to not using a jury and their use has gradually declined. Juries are also used in a coroners’ court under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, if the death is suspected to have occurred in police custody from violent or unnatural causes, the cause is unknown, neglect or caused by a police officer and also if the senior coroner deems there is sufficient reason for it, the juries would decide on the cause of death (Martin J: 2010 112).

Under the Juries Act 1974, anyone between the ages 18 to 70 are eligible for jury service provided they are on the electoral role and have been a resident of the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands, or the Isles of Man for 5 years after the age of 13 to allow for a diverse age range and mostly non legal background without conflicting interests for potential jurors to allow for equity. Anyone receiving treatment for a mental illness is exempt. Clergy men, legal professionals including judges, barristers and solicitors, prison officers, members of the police force including civilians employed by them used to be exempt up until the Criminal Justice Act 2003. This could lead to possible conflicting interests or inexperienced and under confident jurors being swayed by legal professionals, however in 2004 the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Woolf stated that it is at a judges own discretion if they divulge this information to the rest of the jury. Jury service is compulsory and penalties such as fines are imposed for failure to attend without a good reason, it is expected that almost everyone will serve. Prior to the Juries Act 1974, to qualify for jury service a person had to be the owner or tenant of a dwelling. This excluded many people from serving, but the Juries Act 1972 widened the qualification to having the right to vote (Martin J: 2010 116 123) (Keenan D: 2001 113) (helpwithlawexams.co.uk 2012).

Certain people can be excused ‘as of right’ if they want to be; members of HM forces. The 1974 Act also allows for exemptions to be granted prior to attending administratively as previously exemption could only be granted by the trial Judge on the day. Prior to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, medical professionals and M.P’s were also included in this category but are no longer able to refuse jury service, instead they must apply for discretionary excusal (Martin J: 2010 114).

Anyone who has been imprisoned for more than 3 months and up to 5 years is disqualified for 10 years, more than 5 years warrants a life time disqualification. Anyone who has been sentenced to a community order or suspended sentence where disqualified by the Juries Disqualification Act 1984 for a period of 10 years, as well as anyone sentenced to probation being disqualified for 5 years. Before this, the Juries Act 1974 had allowed these criminals to serve as jurors. Under section 38 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, anyone on bail for criminal proceedings is also exempt from jury service. It is a criminal offence to knowingly serve as a juror if they are exempt by one of the categories. Criminals serving as jurors could lead to conflicting interests, they may have a grudge against the judicial system or the law in general (Ibid 113 114).

The random selection process itself is not without its flaws; ethnic minorities are not guaranteed to be represented and sometimes juries lack the intellect needed to weigh up the evidence and follow the arguments. A judge can discharge a juror if he believes they lack the capacity to cope with the trial, if they have a disability such as blindness, they would be unable to see maps, pictures, plans and evidence, a deaf person being unable to hear the tone of voice would be less capable of determining witness or defendant credibility. However, under Section 9B(2) of the Juries Act 1974 and Section 41 the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, anyone with a disability is not exempt from jury duty. It is at a judges’ discretion to discharge the juror if he believes the disability will inhibit their performance (Ibid 117 118 121) (sixthformlaw.info 2012).

Anyone receiving a jury summons is selected at random from the Register of Electors for Parliament, they will receive all of the required information needed and is asked to complete a form either confirming eligibility, disqualification or whether they want to be excused ‘as of right.’ Special circumstances like a parent with a very young child, someone running a one man business or caring for a relative may apply for discretionary excusal, but are expected to serve at a later date. This is decided by the clerk of the court who may not accept their personal reasons for not serving (Keenan D: 2001 114).

Up to 150 summonses may be sent out each fortnight for some of the larger courts, it is not known how many of those summonsed will be disqualified, exempt or excused as of right. They also have multiple court rooms and trials happening at the same time, all who are summoned are expected to serve for two weeks jury service, although in complicated cases where they are expected to last longer, jurors are asked whether they will be able to serve for longer periods of time and because of the possibility of too many excusals, if there are not enough potential jurors on the day of trial, people passing by the court or from local offices or businesses can be drafted in to serve under a “special power” called praying a talesman, provided they meet the required qualifications (Martin J: 2010 118 121).

On the day of trial potential jurors are divided into groups of 15, allocated a court room and then 12 of the 15 are selected at random. Once the list of potential jurors is known, they may be vetted on request of the prosecution or defence in the form of police checks and wider background checks however, routine police checks are made to eliminate those disqualified by criminal convictions. Under section 5 of the Juries Act 1974, the defence has the right to see the list of elected jurors’ names and in London their addresses too, this could lead to jury nobbling, media interference or in some cases intimidation, however it allows the defence to check if there are any jurors who possibly know the defendant or live near them. In exceptional cases involving national security or terrorist cases political affiliation vetting can be done, but only with the expressed permission of the Attorney-General (Ibid 121) (Keenan D: 2001 113 114).

Once the list of 12 jurors’ names has been selected, the prosecution and defence have the right to challenge one or more of the jurors before they are sworn in. Section 5 of the Juries Act 1974 allows for individuals or the whole jury to be ‘challenged to the array’ if it is deemed to be selected in a bias or unrepresented way, in R v Ford 1989 juries are chosen in a random way and cannot be challenged on not being multi- racial alone. Same goes for gender minorities on a jury. A ‘challenge for the cause’ can be made but must have a valid point why a juror should not serve, either they are known to be disqualified; they are known by or related to anyone involved in the trial. As in the cases of R v Wilson and R v Sprason 1995, both defendants’ charges were dropped on appeal and convictions quashed because a woman serving as a jurors’ husband worked at the prison they were on remand, even though she had already asked to be excused for this reason. The prosecution has the ‘right to stand by’ jurors and put them to the bottom of the list of potentials, they do not have to give a reason for this, but the Attorney-General has been specific about this power being used sparingly (Martin J: 2010 119 121 122).

Each of the 12 jurors that make it through the vetting process has to swear an oath in the presence of each other on the bible or if non Christian read an affirmation declaring they will give a true verdict according to evidence. The court clerk will then explain the charges and that the decision they make must be based on the evidence provided, this is the official beginning of the trial (Keenan D: 2001 116).

Juries are only used in the Crown court if a defendant pleads not guilty, this accounts for around 30000 cases each year. In 60 % of these cases defendants are acquitted, 10% are directed by a judge to acquit the defendant if they feel that in law, the prosecutions’ evidence does not support a conviction. A jury of 12 is used in criminal proceedings and a unanimous decision must be attained in order for a verdict to be reached. If it cannot, after 2 hours of deliberation in secret, a majority of 11:1 or 10:2 can be accepted. This should allow for any possible bias to be cancelled out, but could also mean that sometimes people could feel pressured to follow the majority vote, especially in the case of a lengthy trial. Majority verdicts account for around 20% of cases a year. Judges must accept the jury’s decision if they do not agree with it as of the Bushell’s Case in 1670, juries play no part in sentencing. Jury service is seen as being a chore to most people as it means sacrificing their personal time, taking time off work and long days for 2 weeks at a time sometimes listening to horrific evidence and due to the secret nature of the juries there is no investigation into how the jury’s verdict is reached so no way of knowing if the understood the case and came to their decision for the right reasons. Section 8 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 made it against the law to disclose any information whatsoever on how the jury made their decision or what is discussed, this was brought into force because the media at the time were paying large sums of money for their stories. Media attention and public opinion may also potentially sway jurors decisions, this is why secrecy and equity of the jury is so important, allowing jurors to not be swayed by outside pressure and free from the strict constraints of the law to make moral decisions based on facts (Martin J: 2010 122 123) (helpwithexams.co.uk 2012) (sixthformlaw.info 2012).