New Page 1

(a) What part is played bv juries and lay magistrates in the resolution of civil and
criminal cases?

(b) Examine critically the arguments for and against the use of either juries or lay
magistrates in the English Legal System.

Written by James Faulkner.

Introduction

Due to the two part nature of my essay I shall examine both sections in turn, regarding the
questions as separate essays; because of the disparate weighting on each question I will have
to include more detail on the latter, which has the highest mark allocation.
For part (a), I will talk about what juries do, and where they do it, addressing these
questions in first the civil and then the criminal system. In my discussion of the civil system I
will mention the restrictions on entitlement to jury trial, and the areas where there is
discretion to allow it, and the fact that juries not only decide who wins, but assess damages.
In the criminal area, I shall illustrate what cases they deal with, and their roles as finders of
fact, pointing out that sentencing is the preserve of the judge. Other issues for me to consider
would be the rules on unanimity and majority verdicts.
I intend to go through the same steps for magistrates. I will explain their responsibilities in
the civil courts as well as their role in criminal cases. To complement the magisterial role
played in the trying of criminal cases I shall include bail applications, search warrants,
committal proceedings, and legal aid in the same bracket.
For part (b) the question invokes a choice of two options. I believe that after the completion
of (a) I will be in better standing to choose between them, being that both will be examined in
the due course of the question, which will offer me a more clearly defined picture of the role
of each one, and thus on the complexities of critical examination where the use of juries or lay
persons in the English Legal System are concerned.

Juries in civil cases

Juries are only used in a small proportion of trials. Juries in civil actions are even scarcer, but
where they are used they have a dual role, deciding whether the claimant has proved his case
or not; if they decide that the claimant has won the case, the jury then goes on to decide the
amount of damages that the defendant should pay to the claimant.
Before 1854 all common law actions were tried by jury, but after 1854 the parties
could acquiesce not to use a jury so their use slowly declined. However, in 1933 the
Administration of Justice Act limited the right to use a jury, which meant juries could not be
used in disputes over breach of contract.
The current rules for when juries may be used in civil cases are laid out '...in section 69 of
the Supreme Court Act 1981 for High Court cases, and section 66 of the County Courts Act
1984 for cases in that court.' [1]
These Acts enounce that parties have the right to jury trial only in the following types of
case: fraud, [2] libel and slander, malicious prosecution and false imprisonment. [3]

In these cases jury trial is to be granted, unless the court is of the opinion that the nature of
the trial warrants prolonged examination of accounts or documents, or any scientific or local
investigation which cannot conveniently be made with a jury. This right is exercised most
consistently in defamation actions, yet I imagine its use may be more restricted now that the
Defamation Act 1996 has introduced a new summary procedure for claims of less than
£10,000, which can be heard by a judge alone. With every other case the right to jury trial is at
the discretion of the court.
All these cases implicate character or reputation; although it is illogical to presume that it is
for this reason only that jury trial has been retained, as the majority of jury trials are held in
the criminal courts.
The 'McLibel trial', which involved a defamation action brought by McDonalds against two
environmental campaigners, was heard by a judge alone. I think it was a good decision to
refuse a jury, as the trial turned into 'the longest ever civil trial.' [4]
In practice, trial by jury in civil cases is not of major importance since it happens so
infrequently. This has become so mainly because of its unsuitability in personal injury cases
for reasons which were restated by Lord Denning in Ward v James (1966). In said case the
plaintiff was claiming for injuries sustained in a road crash. In this case the Court of Appeal
laid down guidelines for personal injury cases. These were:

'Personal injury cases should normally be tried by a judge sitting alone, because such cases
involve assessing compensatory damages which have to have regard to the conventional scale
of damages/ There have to be exceptional circumstances before the court will allow a jury to
be used in such a case' [5]

The decision in Ward v James effectively abated the use of juries for personal injury cases.
The proximate cases demonstrate how the courts have proved disinclined to let juries be used.
In Singh v London Underground (1990) a request for a jury to try a personal injury case
deriving from the King's Cross underground fire was refused. It was held that the case was
inadmissible for jury trial as it involved such broad issues and technicalities.
The case of H v Ministry of Defence (1991) further reinstated the precedent in Ward v James
- the Court of Appeal said that the policy which should be followed was that in Ward v
James which held that trial by jury was normally inappropriate for any personal injury case
because the assessment of damages to compensate for injuries must 'be based upon or have
regard to conventional scales of damages'. [6]
The Court of Appeal also said that 'the very fact that no jury trial of a claim for damages for
personal injuries appears to have taken place for over 25 years affirms how exceptional the
circumstances would have to be before it was appropriate to order such a trial'. [7]

I think the decision whether to permit a jury trial should depend upon a balance of the desire
to grant trial by jury where requested and the need to take a realistic view about the material
with which juries can deal with in a trial and the length of time which a trial is expected to
take or, put another way, the efficient administration of justice. [8]
I imagine after what must have been considerable debate over a number of celebrated libel
actions, [9] the Court of Appeal now has the power either to order a new trial on the ground
that damages awarded by a jury are excessive or inadequate or, without consensus of the
parties, to substitute for the sum awarded by a jury any amount that the court deems
appropriate. [10]
Moreover, the court has discretion to order jury trial in other cases. [11] And as mentioned
earlier jury trial should be ordered only in exceptional cases [12] so I think this will make it
very difficult to persuade the judge to exercise the discretion to order trial by jury.
I have used case law to establish the factors that need to be taken into account: there is a
need for uniformity in the award of damages in personal injury cases, the jury shown to be
ignorant of the conventional figures in like cases; [13] and that in such cases the severity [14]
or unusual [15] nature of the injuries are not exceptional circumstances, but if they are unique,
[16] jury trial may be suitable; the possibility of dishonesty; [17] the fact that the integrity of
the person applying for jury trial might be at risk; [18] the fact that trial without a jury is
faster and less costly; [19] the proposal that, in the circumstances, trial by judge alone is
"more likely to achieve a just result than trial by jury." [20]

Although I may specify the disadvantages of a jury in part (b), I feel it is important to
mention possible detrimental effects of a jury in civil trials at this stage so a more condensed
examination of the role of the jury in civil cases can be seen.
I think that experience is needed to assess compensation equitably; jurors do not have such
experience. Only by legal training and practice are people able to apply the law with
uniformity and treat like cases alike; jurors do not have legal training or practice. Out of court
settlements rest on predictability - most problems arising do not result in legal action, and
society therefore needs consistent application of law.

Juries in criminal cases

Regardless of the allegorical importance of juries in the criminal justice system, in reality
they only function in a minority of cases. Criminal offences are organised into three groups:
summary-only offences, which are tried in the magistrates' courts; indictable offences, which
are tried in the Crown Court; and either-way offences, which, as the name would indicate,
may be tried in either the magistrates' courts or the Crown Court.
Most criminal cases are summary only, and because these are, generally, the least serious
offences, they are also the ones most frequently committed. Due to this, 95 per cent of
criminal cases are heard in the magistrates' courts, where juries have no role; juries only decide
cases heard in the Crown Court. Even among the 5 per cent of cases heard there, in a high
proportion of these the defendant will plead guilty, so there is no call for a jury and, in line
with this, there are cases where the judge directs the jury members that the law demands that
they acquit the defendant, so that the jury effectively makes no decision here either. The
consequence is that juries actually decide on around 1 per cent of all criminal cases.
But if you look at it from another angle, it is helpful to realise that even this 1 per cent
amasses to 30,000 trials, and that these are usually the most major ones to come before the
courts - though here too I have found the picture can be ambiguous, as some serious offences, like assaulting a police officer, are dealt with only by magistrates, while even the most trivial theft can be tried in the Crown Court if the defendant wishes.

The 1977 Criminal Law Act eradicated the right to jury trial in a notable number of offences,
by making most driving offences, and cases of criminal damage involving property worth less
than £2,000, summary-only offences. In conjunction with this, the then government
attempted to limit its use in criminal cases by making property worth less than £20
summary-only offences.

The role of the jury in criminal cases has been described as having three functions. [21] First,
it is the jury that is to reach a conclusion on the facts and it is on these facts which it then
determines guilt. The jury is to arrive at its verdict by considering whether it is satisfied that
the prosecution has proved its case solely on the evidence presented at the trial and in
accordance with the direction of the judge as to the law.
Secondly, the jury adds certainty to the law, as it gives a general verdict; the jury merely
states that the accused is either guilty or not guilty, but offers no reasons. Consequently, the
decision cannot be open to dispute. Thirdly, I believe I am justified in saying that the jury
represents the "just face" of the criminal justice system, because it can arrive at its
unchallengeable decision on any basis it chooses. In particular, I have found that it is proper
for the jury to reach an acquittal according to its conscience, even if a conviction is clearly
required according to the relevant law - as established in Bushell 's Case (1670).
It is safe to estimate that in the beginning the role of the criminal jury was unclear. An
obvious ambiguity that I have observed I might've had is: 'would the twelve individuals be
there to deliberate and deliver a verdict to the judge, or was the judge to treat them as
witnesses, examine them and then come to a decision?'
Indeed, in my opinion, it is because of the resolution of questions like his which have shaped
the future of the jury and thus implicitly, the future of the criminal procedure. What
eventually happened was that the collective deliberative role of the jury prevailed and so the
transition from knowledge to ignorance as the primary characteristic of a juror began. The
instance that I can most easily identify as being a landmark for the criminal trial by jury took
place in 1337, where it became established that the verdict had to be unanimous.
The requirement that the verdict be unanimous was abandoned by the Criminal Justice Act
1967, which introduced the majority verdict. The governing provision is now the Juries Act
1974,s. 17:

"(I)... the verdict of a jury in proceedings in the Crown Court or the High Court need not be
unanimous if -
(a) in a case where there are not less than eleven jurors, ten of them agree on a verdict; and
(b) in a case where there are ten jurors, nine of them agree on a verdict." [22]

I think that since the unanimity principle rather than the majority verdict reduces the risk of
convicting the innocent, unanimous verdicts will command greater community acceptance and
thus the public will have greater confidence in the criminal justice system; in relation to this, it
is clear to me that having a majority verdict weakens the effect of the requirement that the
prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, since if one member of a jury of
twelve people is not satisfied of the guilt of the accused, that is a clear indication that there is
a reasonable doubt and so the accused should be acquitted.

Juries in civil and criminal cases

I have discovered that the qualification for service of jurors, the procedure of summoning,
the ballot and swearing of jurors, and the right to challenge for cause are all exactly the same
for civil and criminal trials.
Majority verdicts may be accepted in civil cases, although there is greater flexibility than in
criminal matters since the parties to the action may proceed by agreement with an incomplete
jury. I think the discretion to exclude a juror from service which may be exercised by the court
is likely to be exercised more freely in civil matters where there may be considerable asperity
or inconvenience caused by a long trial.

Lay magistrates in civil and criminal cases

Magistrates' courts are accountable for permitting licenses to pubs and betting shops, and
keep jurisdiction over domestic matters like adoption. When hearing cases such as this they
are known as family proceedings courts. The Child Support Agency has monopolised most of
their factions in relation to assuring child maintenance payments.
The courts' domestic functions imbricate largely with the jurisdiction of the county court
and the High Court, though some uniformity of approach is rallied by the fact that appeals
arising from these cases are all heard by the Family Division of the High Court.
The fact that for domestic issues, varying procedures and law are applied in the different
courts, and cases are mostly designated to the magistrates' court because they lie within
specified financial proximities, has led to the criticism that there is a second class system of
domestic courts for the poor, with the wealthy using the High Court and county courts where
cases are head by professional and highly qualified judges. As a result of this, magistrates
sitting in domestic cases have to receive particular training and the Bench must consist of both
male and female magistrates.
In criminal cases they conduct summary trials, sentence defendants who either plead or are
found guilty, and hold committal proceedings in indictable offences and hybrid offences when
the defendant has chosen for trial in the Crown Court. Magistrates grant bail, issue warrants
and hear appeals from their clerk's refusal to grant legal aid. Basically, they have a varied
jurisdiction.

Whilst the bulk of the work of magistrates' courts concerns minor offences, their powers of
sentencing are restricted and their decisions create no legal precedents, they do deal with the
majority of criminal cases and they constitute the tribunal most likely to be encountered by
the "ordinary" person. Thus it can be said that the manner in which they perform their
function is of considerable significance.

Legal aid

It is important to stress that the accused who appears at a magistrates' court is not always
represented. The availability and the existence of duty solicitor schemes at magistrates' courts
means that representation is more consistently available than in the past. Although, a large
number of defendants in magistrates' courts are without representation and this does not
seem likely to change in the immediate future. I have ascertained that when pleading not
guilty, the lack of representation can be a major disadvantage. [23] The problems arising for
an unrepresented defendant include ignorance of procedure; the pressure imposed by a
perplexing situation; an incapacity to comprehend what is going on; and the difficulty of
presenting one's own case plausibly.
However, I promote that if amelioration is to take place then there has to be a heavy reliance
on the willingness of the clerk to assist an unrepresented defendant.

Bail applications

If the accused has been arrested without warrant, and has not been bailed by the police, they
must be brought before the magistrates' court and will then have a chance to request bail.
Indeed, the court is under an onus to consider the question of bail albeit if no application has
been made. Only comparatively minor cases can be dismissed at one appearance in the
magistrates' court.
In deciding whether to remand on bail or in custody the magistrates must have regard to the
provisions of the Bail Act but may take advantage of section 154 of the Criminal Justice Act
1988 to reduce the pressures of on going applications. I think this position would be further
eased by a provision for extended remands in custody.

Committal proceedings

Before an accused can be tried on indictment there must prevalently be a preliminary inquiry
into the case conducted in the magistrates' court so as to establish whether there is a prima
facie (one side in a case has shown that there is a case to answer) case. The magistrates will be
required to decide whether to commit the accused for trial at the Crown Court, or whether to
stop the proceedings at that point if there is not "such evidence that, if it be uncontradicted at
the trial, a reasonably minded jury may convict on it." [24]
However, if the accused is discharged by the magistrates at the end of the committal
proceedings this is not the same as an acquittal at trial.
Committal proceedings have evolved from the special role of the magistracy as policeman
and prosecutors prior to the establishment of police forces, yet it is my opinion that their
object is still just the elimination of ill-founded prosecutions for serious offences.

Warrants

In some cases an arrest is authorised by a warrant issued by a justice of the peace
(magistrate) under section 1 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, an an alternative to the
issue of a summons. The issue of an arrest warrant or a summons follows the laying of an
information on oath to the effect that the person named has, or is suspected of having,
committed an offence. A warrant should not be issued where a summons would be similarly
ineffectual, but may, for instance, be executed where the defendant does not answer a
summons.
A large number of statutes permit a judge or magistrate to issue a warrant authorising the
entry to and search of specific premises. The 1884 Act introduced a new general power for
magistrates to issue warrants authorising entry and search for evidence relating to a serious
arrestable offence.

Part(b)

Over the course of my analysis of part (a) I have decided that I would feel more assured in
critically examining the arguments for and against the use of juries in the English Legal
System. The reason for this selection was that I considered that the current state of affairs in
regard to juries was diverse enough to examine in a more extensive way than if I was analysing
the position of lay magistrates.

Juries enable the ordinary citizen to participate in the administration of justice, so that
verdicts are seen to be those of society rather than of the judicial system, and satisfy the
constitutional tradition of judgement by one's peers. Lord Denning described jury service as
giving 'ordinary folk their finest lesson in citizenship'. [25]
The jury adds definition to the law, since it gives a general verdict which is not open to
misinterpretation. In a criminal case the jury simply states that the accused is guilty or not
guilty, and offers no reasons. Consequently, the decision is not open to dispute, so basically
it is unable to be reversed which could mean an innocent person could become the victim of
the juries fallibility.
Because juries have the ultimate right to find defendants innocent or guilty, they have been
seen as a vital protection against oppressive or politically motivated prosecutions, and as a
kind of safety catch for those cases where the law demands a guilty verdict, but genuine
justice does not; however, the jury is by no means an assurance in the application of genuine
justice. I think jury performance would be considerably improved if more care were accorded
to the instruction of the jury on points of evidence and on the method to be followed when
assessing it; this might succeed in determining a higher quota of 'genuine justice' but through
the means of established law, so the line between 'genuine justice' and the decision expected
by the law would not be so far apart.

The basis of the use of juries in serious criminal cases is that the 12 people are randomly
selected, and should therefore constitute a representative sample of the whole population.
While this can be construed as encouraging, I think that awareness needs to be given to the
racial balance in some cases, like where a case has a racial dimension and the defendant
believes they cannot receive a fair trial from an all-white jury, then the judge should have the
power to order that a number of jurors come from the same ethnic minority as the defendant
or victim.

Many of the opinions I have come across during my research into the role of the jury in civil
and criminal cases in part (a) have been helpful in conveying to me that there are lots of
reservations to do with the supposed incompetence of juries, to an extent as to obscure their
ability to reach the right verdict.

I have surmised that the selection of jurors is too wide, resulting in jurors that are not
competent to perform their task, that since the changes allowing a wider contingent of people
to be eligible for jury service took place, a lot of the jurors summoned are not sufficiently
intelligent or educated to do the task properly. I connote that jurors should be selected in
roughly the same way that magistrates are, undergoing interviews and references being
specified, although I can see that this is likely to raise questions - a more sophisticated
selection process would be expensive and time deficient, and a jury that is intelligent
or educated still has the capability to exhibit bias, and indeed, be more likely to do so if
drawn from a narrow social group.
A more drastic scenario that derives from the lack of competence in jurors would be to have
a single judge. The benefits of this option include time-saving at trials through not having to
explain so many matters to the jury which it then decides; the reduction in the likelihood of
decision-making being affected by outside influences [26] and the reduction in verdicts not in
accordance with the law.
However, I find the immediate benefits of the single judge concept tend to obscure the lack
of community participation, the loss of independence and impartiality of the jury, and the
possibility that the judge would become case-hardened or prosecution-minded - all factors
that I fear would become present if the civil/criminal jury were to be retained no longer.
One way that lay participation and increased speed could be achieved would be to allow
magistrates to decide all criminal cases, but I think it is highly unlikely that society would
ever wish to trust decisions on the most heinous crimes to non-legally qualified judges. At the
same time, I am prone to think that isn't that exactly what the jury system does?
But another perspective to that sentiment would be that the the number of jurors, and the
advantages of random selection in terms of representing society as a whole, outweigh the
amateur status of jurors - and injury trials, I suppose the judge is always there to proffer
guidance on matters of law, and to decide the sentence in criminal cases.

The merits of jury trial can be stated in terms of the deficiencies of alternative modes of trial.
Summary process in the magistrates' courts is relatively quick, cheap, but by no means
beyond criticism. Whether right or wrong, I have read opinions that the jury trial relies upon
the constitutional importance of being judged by your peers, and the safeguards it is said to
provide for an accused.
Nevertheless, despite these criticisms - for me, the jury remains a fundamental of the
English Legal System. Lord Denning MR in Ward v James explained that the place of the
modem jury is as follows:

"Let it not be supposed that this court is in any way opposed to trial by jury. It 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 man's honour or integrity is at stake, or
when, one other party must be deliberately lying, then trial by jury has no equal."

It was put more graphically by Lord Devlin, who described jury trial as "the lamp that
shows that freedom lives". I concur with the statement insomuch as it provides some
mechanism to prevent the unjust or oppressive use of the criminal law, although there are
potentially random factors that may affect a jury's deliberations - the specifics of this will
be covered later. The primacy of jury trial could be used as a justification for judicial non-
interference with verdicts in alleged miscarriages of justice cases; I do not know which would
be worse - the fact that the jury delivers an alleged wrongful verdict the first place, or the
fact that the superior judiciary should choose to overlook it.

I think it is necessary to impose restrictions on juries in defamation cases although I disagree
with arguments for their total abolition. I consider that in defamation cases the court should
have the same discretion to order jury trial as in other civil cases and that the function of the
jury should be limited to deciding issues of liability, leaving the assessment of damages to the
judge i.e. I believe that much of the underpinning for jury trials is emotional, and originates
from the value of juries in serious criminal cases, where they stand between the prosecuting
authority and the citizen. But I contest that the true function of the civil jury should be to
weigh facts impersonally and recompense the claiment for an injury that he may have
sustained - a task which the judge is trained for by many years of experience, whilst the jurors
have no training at all.
Furthermore, I find myself wondering if it is right to describe the support for the jury as
'emotional'? Atkin L.J. in Ford v. Blurton (1922) described jury trial as "the bulwark of
liberty, the shield of the poor from the rich and the powerful." [27] Although I am inclined to
think that the argument of Atkin L.J. may appear to be more suited to the jury in criminal
trials, there is still some truth in it relating to civil trials. However, if judges are independent
of the state and other vested interests, perhaps the argument has lost much of its force.

It has been asserted that the jury acquits too many people accused of crime. [28] I have
found that the evidence to support such a claim, is at best, ambivalent. The question of jury
competence raises doubts on whether it is proper for juries to decide cases on any grounds,
regardless of the direction on the law by the judge, and, secondly, whether the jury is capable
of understanding the evidence and making decisions in complicated cases. I will regard these
doubts as an attack on the independence of the jury since I believe that the very arbitrariness
and prejudice of which complaints are made proves that independence.
If crime control were the dominant motive injury reform, I predict that arguments for the
abolition of the jury would be anticipated, as juries can be perceived as inefficient and may
acquit too many people. It is reasonable to say that their decisions are unpredictable, and
their is no appeal against an acquittal, which, as noted earlier, means that every defendant is
all too susceptible to the juries fallibility. In fact, it appears that proposals for the abolition of
the jury are rarely put forward, perhaps because of the popular support the jury receives
through an ingrained belief that it is a constitutional safeguard against wrongful action by the
State or just that it is every person's right to be tried by one's peers.

Trial in the Crown Court currently costs the taxpayer £7,400 per day, as opposed to £1000
per day for trial by magistrates. Obviously the burden of cost is important; why should the
sword of justice be diamond studded? Yet I think that possibly it is worth paying more for
the jury system because it is so fundamental in promoting public involvement.

After a trial is brought to completion, the jurors may not discuss its proceedings, the
deliberations, their opinions or anything else which can be considered as being connected with
it. Whatever has transpired in the course of the trial must not be divulged. The decision to
prevent jurors from discussing the case may be important in assuring that the case stays
within the court and cannot be subject to media intrusion after it has ended, but juries trying
cases involving serious crimes of violence, rape, murder or child abuse, may have to listen to
deeply disturbing evidence, and in some cases, to view graphic images of injuries; not being
allowed to talk about the way the case has affected them will cause great distress to jurors.

The Auld Review proposed that to assist a jury in their work, the prosecution and defence
advocates should prepare a written summary of the case and the issues that need to be
decided. This 'case and issues' summary would be agreed by the judge and dispensed to the
jurors at the start of the trial. Juries would reach verdicts by answering these questions during
their deliberations. Sir Robin Auld argues that this would strengthen the jury as a tribunal of
fact, provide a reasoned basis for jury verdicts, and reduce the risk of perverse verdicts
(verdict by a jury which goes against what anyone would normally feel to be the right
decision or which goes against the direction of the judge). Though there can only be
improvements from citing the case more comprehensibly to the jury, the use of questions
which the jury may be obliged to give answers to publicly, seems to me to be an inessential
limitation on the jurors' liberty to reach an agreement in accordance with their conscience as
well as in accordance with the law.

Jurors tend not to understand the burden or the standard of proof (beyond reasonable doubt)
in criminal cases, applying instead the civil standard (on the balance of probabilities). They
tend to ask the question: Does it seem more likely than not that the defendant did this?
However, it seems to me that this just indicates that juries are simply more prone to give the
benefit of the doubt, to which the defendant is entitled to in any case. For me, it would be
worse if the judge allowed for no benefit of doubt and passed sentence based on the standard
of proof.
If the value of trial by jury lies in the involvement of the public in the criminal process, thus
permitting the exercise of "community conscience" and providing the "just face" of the law, I
believe the jury must be entitled to arrive at decisions which appear to be contrary to the law.
Having said that, I think that permitting juries to decide according to their conscience is
perhaps inappropriate considering the current sophistry of the law. And that if the law is
wrong, the proper means of change is through the democratic process - which, in essence, is
what the jury is all about. So it can be said that to not oppose a wrongful verdict by the jury
would be to contradict its role in the execution of justice and the application of democracy.

Whatever view is taken as to the acceptability of the jury acting according to its conscience,
I intend to develop an argument about "perverse" verdicts in a different sense. Whether juries' verdicts may be described as "perverse" on a more general basis, I think, depends upon what the role of a jury in decision-making is perceived to be. Taking a narrow approach, I purport that a verdict is right if it is reached by the jury after a reasonable attempt to apply the law to the facts as it finds them, without bringing other circumstances into their consideration.
I infer that what will then be achieved is both a greater certainty in the outcome of trials and
greater consistency in juries' decisions. A wider approach I have considered is to maybe
perceive a verdict to be right, where it is a verdict of acquittal, for instance, after a
consideration of the evidence which indicated guilt, provided it nevertheless results from a
reasonable exercise of discretion in favour of the accused reflecting the jury's sympathy, or
disapproval of the prosecution.
The narrow approach views more acquittals as perverse verdicts and hence brings me full
circle to the argument that reform of the jury is necessary.

The use of the jury is viewed as making the legal system more reachable. Justice is perceived
to be done as members of the public are submersed in a key role and the whole process is
public. It also helps to keep the law less convoluted as points have to be explained to the
jury, enabling the defendant to understand the case more easily. Despite this, I think the fact
that the jury deliberate in seclusion and that no-one can inquire into what happened in the
jury room leaves room for error. In addition, the jury do not have to give any reasons for their
verdict, yet when a judge gives a judgement he explains his reasoning and, if he has made an
error, it is known and can be appealed against.

The Government claims that lawyers see the loss of trial by jury as a threat to their incomes,
however, the appeal process against a magistrates decision to commit the case to summary
trial offers many opportunities for appeals and challenges in a whole new field. Justice is
being seen, by the government, as a product; the administration of which is being redesigned
to be as efficient as possible. The design of the legal system has always been to keep the
majority of cases heard in the magistrates' courts where they can be processed quickly and
cheaply. I believe that with the complexity of cases increasing, it is time to drop such a
mathematical approach to justice. If the courts cannot cope with the volume of cases in a
timely fashion then the apparatus of justice should be expanded, not its mechanics changed.
Trial by jury should not be sold for a better bottom line in the legal systems accounts.

Conclusion

The disadvantages of a jury trial appear to be additional time, and consequent additional
expense, of a jury trial, the variability of jury verdicts, the potential hardships and
inconvenience suffered by individual jurors in lengthy cases, the unrealistic expectations that
lay people should listen to and understand extensive and complex evidence, the
unpredictability of jury verdicts and the reluctance of the Court of Appeal to interfere with
jury awards, and the additional burden which may be placed on counsel and judge where
complex questions of law are in issue.
These reasons are sounds pragmatic grounds for the proposition that jury trial is not the
"best" mode of trial for all civil actions and that trial by judge alone would normally be
preferable. But are any reasons sufficiently strong to support the view that trial by jury
should not be permissible?
Despite all the reasons why the jury shouldn't remain a factor in the justice system, I think
that it is desirable to involve as many people as possible in the administration of justice and
that the jury stands between the judges and the man in the street to ensure that ordinary
standards are applied in the doing of justice. It is reasonable to maintain that trial by jury is
unlikely to be abolished in civil matters, but responsibility lies with the judges for ensuring
that the worst features of jury trial are not often evident.

The question asks me to critically examine the arguments for and against the use of juries in
the English Legal System. I believe I have been efficient in presenting both perspectives,
whilst displaying a capability to analyse the plus sides of an issue in contrast to any
negatives it may present, or in short the efficacious censorious perlustration of multi-faceted
corollaries.

        James Faulkner (AS student)                                                            October 2003

[I] Martin J. - 'The English Legal System' - Hodder & Stoughton (2002).

[2] In criminal trials, the recent debate has centred upon the question of whether jury trials in fraud cases should be retained.

[3] Supreme Court Act 1981, s. 69

[4] Charman, Vanstone and Sherratt. - 'AS Law' - Wilan publishing (2003).

[5] Martin J. - 'The English Legal System' - Hodder & Stoughton (2002).

[6] Martin J. - 'The English Legal System resources workbook' - Hodder & Stoughton (2000).

[7] Martin J. - 'The English Legal System resources workbook' - Hodder & Stoughton (2000).

[8] Beta Construction Ltd. v. Channel Four Television Co. Ltd, The Independant, November 7, 1989.

[9] e.g. the case brought by Jeffrey Archer.

[10] Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, s.8.

[II] Supreme Court Act 1981, s.69

[12] Ward v. James (1966) 1 Q.B. 273. This case was sent for jury trial but the court was influenced by factors unfamiliar to it.

[13] Ward v. James (1966) 1 Q.B. 273.

[14] Sims v. William Howard and Son Ltd (1964) 2 Q.B. 409.

[15] Watts v. Manning (1964) 1 W.L.R. 623.

[16] Hodges v. Harland and Wolf Ltd. (1965) 1 W.L.R. 523. A highly unusual case; the plaintiff was injured whilst using a diesel driven air compressor.

[17] Sims v. William Howard and Son Ltd. (1964) 2 Q.B. 409.

[18] Ward v. James (1966) 1 Q.B. 273.

[19] Williams v. Beasely (1973) 1 W.L.R. 11295.

[20] Ibid. per Lord Diplock at p. 1299H

[21] P. Duff and M.Findlay. - 'The Jury in England: Practice and Ideology' - Sweet & Maxwell (1982).

[22] Charman, Vanstone and Sherratt. - 'AS Law' - Wilan publishing (2003).

[23] One study showed that of 111 defendants who pleaded not guilty at a magistrates' court, 30 per cent. of those
     unrepresented were acquitted, whereas 64 per cent. of those represented by lawyers were acquitted: M Zander,
    "Unrepresented Defendants in Magistrates' Courts" .

[24] R. v. Governor of Brixton Prison. (1937) 1 K.B. 374.

[25] C. Elliot & F. Quinn. - 'AS Law' - Longman (2002).

[26] I think this is because the judge may be more immune to threats.

[27] B. Hogan, P. Seago and G. Bennett. - 'A Level Law' - Sweet & Maxwell (1986)

[28] 1 ALL ER 563