a) What part is played by Juries and lay magistrates in the resolution
of civil and criminal cases?
Essay
by Sarina Worley
Introduction
The
parts played by Juries and Lay Magistrates also known as Justices of the Peace
or lay people, meaning an unqualified person within the legal profession are
considerably significant within our current System; since they provide the
justice that the public rightfully have within the country. A Juries main
function is to listen and decide upon the facts of a case in both the
resolution of civil and criminal cases, and give a verdict of guilty or not
guilty. Lay magistrates also play a very similar role in the resolution of both
civil and criminal cases in the Magistrates Court. In this essay we will see
the history of both juries and magistrates along with how they are selected. In
addition we will also see the independence of the jury along with a conclusion
summarising all key points made.
Juries
History of the jury
system
Juries
have been used for over 1,000 years, it is even suggested that they may have
also been used before the Norman Conquest. As stated in the Magna Carta a
jury is the recognition of a personÕs right to trail by Ôthe lawful judgement
of his peersÕ. From this we can see that juries play an important role in
keeping the English legal system equitable. Juries were once just used as
witnesses rather than decision makers, however nowadays their main function is
to decide upon the facts stated within a case and decide upon a verdict.
Overall from this we can see that juries have been part of our system within
England for over a century and play a pivotal role with keeping the equity of
our legal system.
Independence of the jury
The
independence of a jury has become a lot more important in the society we have
today since it is mainly felt that juries should not be intervened with or put
under pressure by the plaintiff, defendant or judge since they are deciding upon
someoneÕs life. A case that highlights the point that juries are the sole
arbiters of fact and that a judge cannot challenge their decision is the BushellÕs
case (1670). In this case numerous amounts of jurors refused to convict
Quaker activists of Lawful assembly; the judge would not accept this decision
and forced them to return to their deliberations without food or water. However
the jurors still returned with a verdict of Ônot guiltyÕ. The judge was
furious, he fined them and sent them to prison until their debts could be paid.
When the case was taken to the Court of Common Pleas, the court released
the jurors stating that jurors could not be punished for their verdict. Another
case that highlights the needed independence of a jury is R v Mc Kenna
(1960). In this case a judge had threatened his jury that if they did not
return a verdict within ten minutes then he would lock them in prison for the
whole night, the jury quickly returned a verdict of ÔguiltyÕ; however it was
then made void because of the interference of the judge. Overall the
independence of the jury shows us that they play an important role in the
resolution of both civil and criminal cases and that their independence needs
to be respected.
The selecting and
qualifications of a jury
At
each crown court there is an official who is responsible for selecting enough
jurors to try cases that will be heard each two week period, jurors are
selected at random from a computer based system. Although only 12 jurors
usually sit within a court there are always more selected since there are many
occasions in which individuals will not be able to attend jury service for
reasons such as pre-booked holidays, irreplaceable business meetings or
personal disabilities. Another reason why a juror may not be able to sit in the
court is if they know the defendant, barrister or judge; this is because it is
felt there may be a conflict of interest that would hinder the outcome of the
case. The qualifications of a jury are fixed within the Juries Act 1974,
it states that to qualify for jury service you must be aged between 18 and 70,
registered as a parliamentary or local government elector, lived in England
since you were thirteen for at least five years, not a mentally disordered
person or disqualified form jury service. The reasons for this are so the
people carrying out jury service will be able to hear the facts of a case and
understand them to the best of their ability.
Juries in civil cases
Although
a juries verdict is important it is rarely seen in a civil case, since it is
felt that they have no experience with complicated documents, accounts, or
scientific evidence which most civil cases will contain. Therefore it has been
decided within the Supreme Court Act 1981, (for High Court cases) and
the County Court Act 1984 (for County Court cases) what types of cases
can be heard by a jury which are defamation (an false accusation of an
offence, or writing something about a person that is not true which can damage
their reputation), false imprisonment, malicious prosecution and fraud.
It has been decided that these are the types of cases heard by juries since they
involve an assessment of character rather than an assessment on technical
points. In the High Court 12 jurors will sit and in the County Court only 8
jurors will sit; apart from assessing the character of the plaintiff, they
will also have to decide the liability and if they find the plaintiff guilty
decide the amount of damages. When the jury have to decide their verdict they
will have to go away to a designated room/chamber and discuss everything that
they have seen within the court case, and from this decide a verdict there must
be a unanimous agreement between the jurors however in some instances there
will be a 10-12 or a 7-8 agreement where only two jurors will think different
to the rest.
Another civil
case that is heard within the QueenÕs Bench Division of the High court is a
personal injury case. Although it is possible for a jury to hear a personal
injury case it is exceptionally rare. In the case of Ward v James (1966),
the plaintiff was claiming for injuries sourced by a road crash. The Court of
Appeal set down guidelines specifically for personal injury cases, they stated
that experience is needed to assess compensation fairly which jurors do not
have the qualifications for. A case that highlights this point is Singh v
London Underground (1990) in this case an application for a jury to try a
personal injury case arising from the Kings Cross underground fire was refused;
since it entailed wide issues and technical points which jurors simply do not
have the qualifications for.
Overall from
juries in civil cases we have seen that they are rarely used due to their lack
of experience, however they can be used for defamation, false imprisonment,
malicious prosecution and fraud. We have also seen that on extremely rare
occasions and for exceptional circumstances that a jury will be used for a
personal injury case.
Juries in criminal cases
Juries are more
commonly seen in criminal cases which are held in the Crown Court; however
saying this juries only try less than 3 per cent of all criminal cases since 97
per cent are heard in the Magistrates Court where there are no juries. In the
Crown Court there will be a jury of 12, they will hear serious criminal cases
such as murder, manslaughter and rape. The jurorÕs role within this court is to
listen to the facts of the case and decide upon a verdict of guilty or not
guilty. Jurors will also sit in the CoronersÕ Court in which there will be a
jury of 7 to 11 who will hear cases on death in prison, in police custody,
through an industrial accident or where health and safety of the public are
involved. Their role within the court is to listen to the facts of the case and
decide upon the cause of death, rather than a verdict of guilty or not guilty.
However since 1977 a coroner no longer has to summon a jury to cases involving
homicide or road accidents and the coroner can choose whether a jury should be
used or not. The way in which the jurors decide the verdict is exactly the same
as a civil case.
Overall from
juries in criminal cases we have seen that they are more commonly seen in a
criminal court, however they only try less than 3 per cent of all criminal
cases. We have also seen that jurors will sit in a Coroners Court to decide
upon the cause of death rather than a verdict of guilty or not guilty.
Lay Magistrates
History of the magistracy
The history of
magistrates goes all the way back to the twelfth century, in 1195 Richard
I appointed
Ôkeepers of the peaceÕ; and towards the thirteenth century the title Ôjustice
of the peaceÕ; was being used. Through the years their roles grew and
developed; a poor quality of local justices of the peace in London and the
absence of an ample police force meant that public offices with paid
magistrates were being set up. Between 1792 and 1839 they were in charge of the police
and hearing cases in court. In 1835 the Municipal Corporations act
allowed boroughs to request the appointment of a paid magistrate, at first they required
no qualifications, however from 1839 magistrates could only be appointed from
barristers and could only be appointed from solicitors from 1949. There are now
29,000 magistrates sitting within magistrateÕs courts.
Appointing and Training of Lay Magistrates
There are about
1,500 lay magistrates appointed each year, the appointments of the magistrates
are made by the Lord Chancellor who relies on recommendations made to him by
the local advisory committees. However this method is much criticised since
magistrates are meant to come from a variety of different backgrounds whereas
the Lord Chancellor would be more prone to appoint people from a more
privileged background. To actually be appointed you must be over 18, you must
have maturity and sound temperament, commitment and reliability, good
character, understanding and communications skills, social awareness and sound
judgement. It is believed that this is what magistrates should entail since
essentially they are judging the facts presented to them within a case.
Magistrates are there to help the community and provide a more diverse range of
people. 49 per cent of magistrates are female, however most magistrates are
from privileged managerial backgrounds who are conservative in their political
views. This can present the idea that magistrates would not give a fair
judgement which is their main role.
The training of
lay magistrates is controlled by the Magistrates committee of the Judicial
Studies Board; they mainly draw up syllabus topics that magistrates should
go over in the training process. Usually a magistrates training will be carried
out in their local area, and will also be taught by the Clerk of the Court
whose main function is to keep court records, pleadings, motions and
judgements. The clerk will also advise the magistrates on matters of law but
cannot give a verdict. In 1998 the Magistrates New Training Initiative
was introduced which was then advanced to the Magistrates National Training
Initiative.
Lay magistrates in civil cases
Magistrates
deal less with civil cases; however they do have some involvement in civil
matters which include the enforcing of debts owed to the utilities, non-payment
of council tax, non-payment of television licences, and licences for betting
and gaming establishments. Along with this Lay Magistrates also deal with
family work which involves the orders for residence and contract with children.
Within the Magistrates Court there will be a maximum of three magistrates on a
panel. Their role within the panel is to listen to the facts of the case
presented to them and construct a fair judgement, much like a jury. Magistrates
will also sit in youth courts, they will have to be less than 65 years of age
and have a panel of one woman one man.
Overall from
Lay Magistrates in civil cases we can see that they do not deal with civil
matters a great deal but do have a small involvement.
Lay magistrates in criminal cases
Magistrates
deal with 97 per cent of all criminal cases, meaning that there work
load is immensely heavy making magistratesÕ courts one of the busiest in our
legal system. Magistrates also deal with preliminary hearings in the
remaining 3 per cent of criminal cases. This involves early
administrative hearings, remand hearings meaning are the defendants let out or
not, bail applications, and committal proceedings meaning deciding what
court the defendant will be going too. Along with this they will also deal with
failures to pay a television licence, and minor assault and criminal damage;
so mostly petty crimes. There will be a maximum of three magistrates on a
panel. Their role within the panel is to listen to the facts of the case
presented to them and construct a fair judgement, much like a jury, and civil
area of the Magistrates Court. However Magistrates only deal with summary
offences, meaning they can only give a maximum of a six month sentence.
Overall from
Lay Magistrates in criminal cases we can see that they have a considerably
heavy workload with criminal matters and deal with 97 per cent of all criminal
cases. We have also seen that they only deal with summary offences which can be
classed as petty crimes.
Conclusion
In conclusion
we have looked at the question ÔWhat part is played by Juries and lay
magistrates in the resolution of civil and criminal cases?Õ and have seen that
a juryÕs role within the resolution of a civil case is to determine the
liability of the case and provide a fair verdict. We have also seen that their
role in the resolution of a criminal case too. Lastly we have seen that the magistratesÕ
role within the resolution of civil and criminal cases is to listen to the facts
of the case presented to them and produce a sound judgement. Overall we can
clearly see that juries and lay magistrates participate in a pivotal part in
the resolution of both civil and criminal cases.
Introduction
This
essay will critically evaluate the arguments for and against the use of juries
in the English legal system, and will then ultimately come up with an overall
judgement on whether juries are efficient enough within the English legal
system. However my main argument will be that juries do produce verdicts and
fulfil a personÕs right to trial by the lawful judgement of his peersÕ as
stated in the Magna Carta but they do not have much understanding of the law
and can be easily influenced.
What is
a Juror/ Juries?
A
juror also known as a lay person, meaning unqualified within the legal
profession is an individual who has been selected from a computer based system
at random to serve in a court along with other jurors. It is an individualÕs
civic duty to perform jury service, the individual is not allowed to refuse
jury service unless they are excluded, meaning mentally disordered or if they
have a lack of capacity. Disqualified, meaning having an imprisonment for life
or an extended sentence. Or excused, meaning people with business appointments,
examinations or a member of the armed forces.
Argument
for the use of juries
There
are positively advantages for the use of juries which will be discussed below:
Fairer verdict
The
advantage of a jury is that they are a balanced cross-section of people between
the ages of 18 to 70 with all types of races and backgrounds; therefore
a fair and just verdict should be created. It is seen that a jury will create a
healthier verdict since they do not have any court experience and will not have
any preconceived ideas about the defendant standing in front of them. A quote
that highlights this point was once said by Lord Devlin ÔIt is the lamp that
shows that freedom livesÕ. This shows us that juries are fair and
democratic. A jury is also an individuals right within the English legal system
and as stated in the Magna Carta a jury is the recognition of a personÕs
right to trail by Ôthe lawful judgement of his peersÕ. From this we can see
that juries play an important role in keeping the English legal system
equitable.
Public involvement
Another
advantage for the use of juries is that it involves the public since
essentially jurors are just the regular people from the street; it makes the
legal system seem more open and also makes it seem like the public are the key
within the justice system. In addition public involvement within the justice
system also shows the community that something is being done to preserve
justice within our society.
What we
can see overall from arguments for juries
Overall
from this we can see that a jury is a personÕs right within the English legal
system, and that it is also believed a jury will produce a fairer and impartial
verdict. Along with this we have seen that a jury also produces public
involvement which can help preserve justice within our society.
Arguments
against the use of juries
There
are unfortunately many disadvantages towards the use of juries which will be
discussed below:
Influenced judgements
ÔSociety appears to have an attachment to jury trial which is emotional
and sentimental rather that logicalÕ. This was once stated by Roskill, it shows us
that a jury will be more likely swayed by a sad story rather than whether the
defendant is guilty or not. Although this is understandable it is still not
right, it highlights to us that juries are not taking into consideration the
actions of a defendant; this could easily lead to a murderer being released
simply due to a poignant story of his/her reasoningÕs of a murder. Overall this
shows us that juries can be highly influenced, they do not have the skills in
order to distinguish an accurate verdict which can therefore steer to
injustice.
Media influence
Media
influence can be a major disadvantage especially in high-profile cases. This
can be seen in the case of R v West (1996), in this case the defendant
Rosemary West was convicted for the murders of ten young girls and women, as
well as her own daughter. From the moment that she was discovered of this
horrific crime the media coverage was extreme. Although understandable the
media would have considerably influenced the jurors trying the case who gave a
verdict of Guilty, due to this Rosemary West appealed against her conviction on
the grounds that the media coverage had made it impossible for her to receive a
fair trial. The court of Appeal rejected this claim since if it was accepted it
would mean that any case that shocked the nation could not be tried due to the
media coverage; the judge also said in his statement that he had given sufficient
warning to the jury to examine only the evidence they heard in the court not
from what they heard through the media. This shows us that media coverage is a
major downfall, since it involves the whole nation of the country, even world
of a situation that should have been dealt with clandestinely in court. Another
case that highlights the disadvantage of the media is R v Taylor and Taylor
(1993), in this case two sisters had been charged with murder, and the
media published a still video sequence that gave a false impression of what was
happening. The jury gave the two defendants a verdict of Guilty, however the
trial judge let the defendants appeal against the verdict since there could
have been some media influence involved within their decision. The appeal case
won and the convictions against the defendants were dropped. This once again
highlights to us that there is a serious problem with juries since they are being
influenced by outside information that should not in any way affect the case.
On the whole this presents to us that a jury should not be used due to the
major jeopardy that is at stake, that being a persons life.
Racial Bias
With
the fact that a jury is a random selection of 8-12 people you can never be
completely sure of the character who will be sitting in court; this can create
the problem of bias in a racist and sexist manner. Racist bias can be seen in
the case of Sander v United Kingdom (2000), in this case there had been
a breach within the European Convention on Human Rights under section 6
in which it states every individual has a right to a fair trial. During the
case a juror had passed a note to the judge raising concern about the other
jurors who had been making racist comments; the judge had then warned the
jurors and asked them to Ôsearch their consciencesÕ. The next day the judge
received two signed letters, the first was signed by the jurors stating that
they denied any racist feelings towards the defendant, and the second letter
was from the original juror who admitted that he may have been the one making
the jokes. Although the judge should have discharged the jurors he allowed the
case to continue. This demonstrates to us that there was an obvious risk of
racial bias which would lead to an unfair trail and a bias verdict. Within a
case a sexist verdict can also be very possible. Overall from this we can see
that racist and sexist bias is a real cause for concern since it is happening,
and is hard to exonerate, meaning that this problem will keep happening leading
to a complete violation of the European Convention on Human Rights. On
the whole this presents to us the idea that a jury should not be used due to
uncongenial bias of race and sex.
Lack of Understanding
It
is quite fair to say that jurors will have a lack of understanding due to their
inexperience with law. In 1992 the Runciman Commission carried out a
survey asking if jurors felt they understood the evidence they were being
presented with; 56 per cent believed they had understood the evidence,
whereas 41 per cent believed that most of the jury understood the
evidence and 10 per cent confessed that they found it hard to understand
the evidence they had been presented with. Along with this, the survey found
the foremen of the juries believed that 0.2 per cent could not
understand English; they also believed that 1 per cent of the jurors
could not understand the details of the case and 1 per cent could not
understand the case at all. This shows us that juries cannot possibly create a
fair verdict if they do not have a good understanding of what they are being
presented with; only 56 per cent believed they understood the case and
quite frankly this is dreadful statistic, if this is what our justice system is
really providing then they need to dramatically change their jury systems to
create a better qualified jury. Overall from this we can see that there is
sufficient evidence that proves juries do have to an extent a lack of
understanding with regards to court evidence, and that severe changes need to
be made in order to better inform the jurors.
Secrecy
Secrecy
can be looked at in a positive and negative way. The positive is that the jury
have there own independence which allows them not to be intimidated. However
the negative side of this is that with the secrecy it is impossible to know
whether the jury has fully understood the facts and evidence of the case that
they are trying. Also a jury unlike a judge do not have to state their reasons
for their verdict which makes it exceptionally difficult to determine how they
came to their verdict. In the case of R v Mirza (2004), the House of
Lords ruled that no one can inquire into discussions of a jury room. In the
appeal two cases were considered that being R v Mirza (2004) and R v
Conner and Rollock. In the
case of R v Mirza (2004), Mirza the defendant was a Pakistani who had
lived in England since 1988. When he was in court he had to have an interpreter
with him since he could not understand English; during the trial the jury had
sent notes asking why the defendant needed an interpreter with him. The jury
convicted the defendant 10-12; six days after the verdict one juror wrote to
the defendants counsel claiming that from the start of the trial there had been
a presumption that the use of an interpreter was a ÔployÕ. The juror also
stated that she had been shouted down when she objected to the verdict and
reminded her fellow jurors of the judgeÕs instructions. In R v Connor and
Rollock, in this case two people had been accused of stabbing an individual
and it was the juriesÕ task to determine who was responsible. The jury
ultimately came to a verdict of guilty for both the defendants believing that
it would Ôteach them a lessonÕ. The majority was 10-12 the same as R v Mirza
(2004); the opposing juror wrote a letter to the Crown Court stating she
believed whilst in the juries room that the jurors should consider which of the
two defendants were responsible. However her fellow jurors rejected this though
claiming that if they did this it could take up, up to a week considering the
verdict of the case. The House of Lords held that section 8 of the
Contempt of Court Act 1981 made it a contempt to disclose or obtain or
solicit information about what transpired within the jury room, even for the
purpose of an Appeal. They also stated that section 6 of the Contempt of
Court Act 1981 was compatible with Article 6 of the European Convention on
Human Rights which stated: Ôconfidentiality was essential to the proper
functioning of the jury processÕ; Ôthere was merit in finalityÕ; and Ôjurors
had to be protected from harassmentÕ. Overall this shows us that secrecy is a
major downfall, it keeps the court away from knowing whether the jury fully understood
the facts of the case, and also creates injustice which is not the purpose of a
jury.
Funding
Juries
can be major disadvantages in the form of expenses since it costs vast amounts
of money to have a jury sit within a court; juries also make a court case even
longer which can ultimately make a case run into hundreds of thousands of
pounds which could easily put someone into major debt. However the Lord
Chancellor has set up some provisions for this. Firstly he has setup some
reforms so that deformation which is a false accusation of an offence, or
writing something about a person that is not true which can damage their
reputation, can now agree that their case should be transferred to the County
Court which will only have a jury of 8 and will be less expensive. Along with
this an individual could also agree to the case being tried by a judge alone
without a jury. The Defamation Act 1996 also allows the defendant to
seek up to £10,000 which can help clear their name and get instantaneous
compensation at a lower cost. Overall from funding we can see that juries are
expensive and make a court case even longer this presents to us the idea that
juries should not be used since they create many subsidy problems which can
make a court case for compensation pointless.
What we
see overall from arguments against the use of juries
Overall
we have seen that there are a significant amount of disadvantages towards the
use of juries the main problems seem to be a lack of understanding since
essentially a juryÕs main aim is to listen and understand the facts of a case
to come up with a just verdict; but it seems like the juries we have are not
accomplishing this goal. The other main disadvantage that seems to the
prominent is influenced judgements. The fact that juries are doing the exact
opposite of what they are meant to do which is to listen only to the facts of the case and nothing outside of the
court room which seems to have happened in the cases of R v West (1996), and
R v Taylor and Taylor (1993). Overall it is clear to see why there are
many disadvantages towards the use of juries since they are easily influenced
and uninformed.
Alternatives
to juries
If
there was no jury then there are other alternatives that can be used to replace
them, this will be discussed below:
A panel of judges
A
panel of judges could be used as it is in some continental countries, a panel
of three to five judges could sit and try the case instead of juries. This
gives the benefit of experienced people judging the facts of the case they are
trying; however the disadvantage to this is that the judges could become
case-hardened and may come from an elite background the opposite to what juries
are. There is also another problem that our current system does not hold enough
judges to make a panel of judges system work, meaning that a drastic change
would have to be made to implement this proposal which could make this
altogether very expensive.
Trial by a single judge
Trial
by a single jury can be very advantageous since it is regarded as producing a
fairer verdict, it is the method used within civil cases therefore it wouldnÕt
have the problem of the current system needing a drastic change. Also this
system is used within criminal courts which are the Diplock Courts in Northern
Ireland since there was a problem of threats and Ôjury nobblingÕ; meaning
intimidation. However the disadvantage of this much like the first alternative
is that judges can become case-hardened and not have any idea about the
background of where their defendants have come from.
Suggestion
It
is my personal belief that juries are a good way of enforcing justice, however
I feel that they are being let down when being informed on the facts of a case;
therefore I believe that it is a good idea to still select jurors in the same
way but give them a crash course in courts and law for a minimum of a week.
This would allow defendants to achieve a just verdict instead of a confused and
rushed one, and would also allow the jurors to fully understand everything they
are being told within the case they are trying. Although the public may
disagree with this suggestion in the long run it would benefit the nation
immensely since they will be receiving a fairer justice system
Conclusion
In
conclusion we have looked at the question ÔExamine critically the arguments for and against the use of juries in
the English legal systemÕ; and have come to the conclusion that overall juries
are a good idea in enforcing justice and play a part in a personÕs right to
trial by the lawful judgement of his peersÕ as stated in the Magna Carta. However they do need some sort of training in
order to provide a better service for the public; this seems to be the best way
since the alternatives are considerably expensive and time consuming. It seems
as if the secrecy and bias of a jury are inevitable and will regrettably never
be solved in a sufficient way. Overall juries are efficient within our legal
system with but could benefit from some much needed training!
By Sarina Worley