Essay written by Richard Maslin (Oct/Nov 2006).
Magistrates:
Magistrates are, unsurprisingly, used in the Magistrate’s Court. The cases are heard by magistrates (both lay and stipendiary) whereupon they give their verdict and sentence accordingly. They also operate in the Crown Court to hear appeals from the lower courts.
The role of magistrates in the criminal division:
The role of a magistrate is not a simple one and they have a very demanding job considering they are not even paid for it. A magistrate is involved in so many aspects of a trial and because they have no legal training it can presumably become quite challenging. There are many vital duties within this division and are split between the magistrates on the bench.
Of course the most obvious role of the magistrate is hearing a case and deciding a verdict at the end of it. According to The English Legal System by Jacqueline Martin, magistrates try 97% of all criminal cases and deal with the preliminary hearings for the other 3%. A case is presented to the magistrate’s panel and after all evidence and statements are given, it is up to the three to make the final verdict.
After the verdict has been given comes the task of the sentencing. They would be advised by the court clerk about an appropriate sentence that has been passed down in legal precedent. After hearing this, the three would deliberate over the exact sentencing they would pass down. They would decide either the length of the imprisonment, amount of a fine or the amount of damages paid to a plaintiff.
Magistrates also deal with matters outside of the courtroom in early administrative hearings, bail applications and committal proceedings.
Early administrative hearings are where issues, such as legal aid and other necessary information, are dealt with as soon as possible after a person has been charged and bailed to appear in court. This is to ensure that these early proceedings are dealt with as soon as possible so as to get the case underway without wasting any time.
Bail applications are where a case is put forward that some who has been charged with a criminal offence should be allowed to stay at home until the date of the trial. In more serious offences this would be ignored, but for more minor crimes, the magistrates can decide whether bail is appropriate.
Committal proceedings are essentially just the bureaucratic filings and paperwork involved with the legal admission of a guilty criminal into prison custody. The magistrates must sign all the correct forms and fill in information before the person can be sent to prison.
Magistrates are also involved in the issue of search and arrest warrants so as to aid the police in their work and to collect evidence for a trial.
There are also specially selected and trained magistrates who form the Youth Court panel and hear charges that have been brought against minors ages 10-17. The magistrates chosen for this must be under 65 and the panel will include one man and one woman.
These are just the most important and fundamental of the duties of magistrates in Criminal court. This is why the majority of magistrates work is based in the criminal division.
The role of magistrates in the civil division:
In civil cases, the bulk of a magistrate’s work is based in enforcement of debts and disputes over utility bills (gas, electric and water), non-payment of council tax and TV licenses. For example, if a person refuses to pay any of these bills or taxes then they are summoned to court and forced to pay.
Lay magistrates are required to hear appeals regarding the refusal of local authorities to grant licenses for the sale of alcohol on premised. A pub or bar would have to apply for this alcohol license and if it was not granted they could appeal and take it to the magistrates to have the ruling overturned. Similarly, if the license for gambling in gaming establishments was not given, they would also appeal to the court in the hopes that the license might still be granted.
The final aspect of the civil division that magistrates rule on is in the Family court. This would require decisions such as rulings on child custody or the legal processing of an adoption.
There is less of a role for magistrates in the civil division but their work in such cases is still important to the workings of society.
Juries:
Juries primarily serve in the Crown and High Courts but can also be called in to the coroner’s court (very occasionally) or the county court to hear civil cases.
The role of a jury in the criminal division:
A jury is only used in the Crown Court for cases where the defendant has pleaded ‘not guilty.’ This results in juries being used in approximately 20,000 cases every year.
A jury, after their selection at random from their local electoral role, generally serve in the Crown Court and the High Court. Their duties are similar to those of a magistrate, except their decisions are made in groups of 12.
Their primary role is, most like a magistrate, to decide on a verdict of a case. The sentencing of a case, however, is the judge’s prerogative and it is known as split function. The judge also has powers to advise the jury to acquit the defendant if an insufficient case has been brought against them. Apart from this instance, a judge cannot disagree or overrule the juries verdict, as brought about after Bushell’s Case (1670.)
They must also attempt to reach a unanimous verdict. On occasion, a judge will accept a majority vote of 11-1 or 10-2 after a deadlock of a certain time. However it is preferable that they reach the decision unanimously so that justice is seen to be done.
One important task they must undertake at the beginning of the trial is the electing of a foreman. The foreman will try to take charge of the jury and will engage the voting of guilty or not guilty. He is also responsible for the announcement of the verdict to those present in the court. As such, this is a very essential role and the election of the foreman is very important.
They must also go into the courtroom and listen to the evidence being presented to them. From this, they must then decide purely on the facts, instead of legal precedents. It is believed that their lack of knowledge on previous cases will make their decisions less biased, as they will have no preconceived ideas.
The role of a jury in the civil division:
It is not often that a jury is asked to sit in a civil trial, due to the complexity of the case and evidence. However, on some occasions, juries are called in to decide the verdict based on the evidence.
There are only 4 types of civil case where a jury is called. These are; fraud, defamation, false imprisonment or malicious prosecution. Apart from the nature of the cases the duties that the jurors carry are the same as in a criminal court. The key difference is that, unlike criminal court, the jury are also required to decide on the amount of the settlement upon finding a party guilty. They will decide on the damages that must be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff if they are found guilty.
For this part of the essay I have chosen to focus on the arguments for and against the use of juries in the English legal system. I shall weigh up the evidence presented and then form my conclusion about their importance and/or alternatives.
Juries have been used for over 1,000 years, ever since the Magna Carta declared that every man should be entitled to ‘lawful trial by his peers.’ Since the 15th century, they have become the independent rulers of a trial and decide their verdict based on the facts they are presented.
There are many arguments for and against the use of juries in our modern legal system. I seek to look at them in turn and decide which is the more cogent argument and draw my opinions into the argument.
With such a longstanding history of trial by peers, should we allow the system to continue as it has done for centuries? Or is it time to abandon these flawed methods and opt for change?
Public confidence and jury equity:
One of the greatest reasons to have trial by jury in place is the issue of public confidence. Despite the fact that people might not be keen to have 12 people they do not know, with no legal experience, to come in and decide on their innocence or guilt, they are considered a key element to a democratic and fair judicial system.
The idea is that, because of their lack of legal experience, they will decide based purely on fact instead of legal precedent.
They are not bound to follow the advisals of past cases and Acts of Parliament and, as such, judge purely on their own sense of right and wrong. This is sometimes known as jury equity. The importance of jury equity has been highlighted in a number of cases, particularly Ponting’s Case (1984) where a jury refused to find a defendant guilty against the judge’s wishes.
The fact that the members of the jury are picked at random from all classes and cultures in society is seen to eliminate any bias that may be held. This, compared to the widely held view that all judges are middle aged, middle class and middle minded, means that the public will have more faith in this wide cross section of society. They also feel that such a cross section gives the jury trial an impartiality and fairness that might not be found with, say, a bench of judges or magistrates.
Lack of understanding and perverse decisions:
Although lack of legal knowledge may result in greater impartiality, it does mean that there may be also be a lack of understanding when it comes to more complex cases. A wider fear of this came from a survey in 1992 from the Runciman Commission. Past jurors were questioned with regards to how well they understood the evidence. 56% said that they felt all the jurors had understood the evidence, while 41% felt that the majority of the jury were not fully understanding of the evidence. Meanwhile, 0.2% could not understand English well enough to comprehend the case. Although this is a small percentage, it is surely still too much. If a defendant found guilty was informed that a person who did not speak English served on his jury, they would certainly be outraged and have solid grounds for an appeal.
In civil cases such as fraud, it could be suggested that jurors might also be unable to follow the complexities of the case. Due to their nature, such trials feature very detailed testimonies, accounts and evidence. It is even said that some most intelligent jurors may have difficulty in following a case of fraud. It is also problematic that these trials generally last for very long periods of time, which places strain on the jurors and therefore affects their level of understanding such information.
It has been suggested, by the Roskill Committee (1986), that juries should not be used in trials such as complex fraud cases. There are provisions being made to allow the prosecution to apply for a trial by single judge, but this act has not yet been accepted by Parliament and the House of Lords.
It could be that judges should be allowed to dismiss the need for juries in cases that are clearly far too complex for them to understand. This would eliminate incompetent decisions and perverse verdicts.
In spite of the positives of jury equity, this can also lead to perverse decisions. Since they can ignore laws, this can lead to their decisions being seen as unjustified. An example of this would be R v Randle and Pottle (1991), where the jury saw fit to acquit two men who had admitted to aiding the escape of a spy from prison. Since the offence occurred 25 years before the trial began, the jury did not feel that the men should pay for their crime and were found not guilty. This is a problem as juries can see fit to find people innocent when they feel morally obliged to do so. So there is only so far the avoidance of points of law can go.
Open system of justice and secrecy of the jury room:
Juries are viewed as making the English legal system more open and accessible to the public. This is because the justice is seen to be done by having the public fully integrated into the system. The whole process is done in public so this furthers society’s confidence in the process.
Another benefit is that the law is made clearer, as the defence and prosecution have to aim their arguments toward the lay people. This also allows the defendant to understand their own case better which results in greater trust in the verdict.
The secrecy of the jury room can be seen as a positive to many, as this leaves the jury free from any outside influence or pressure about their decisions. This means that the jury may also give verdicts that are unpopular with the public. Thanks to the secrecy of the jury room it also means that jury nobbling is less widespread as no one knows how or why they have made their decisions.
They also do not need to give a reason for the decision they have made and, as such, will feel under no pressure and their result will but unbiased. It is likely that people would be less willing to do jury service if they knew that their opinions and reasoning would be broadcasted and made public.
Secrecy and media influence:
There is a negative aspect to the secrecy that is afforded jury members. Because the jury do not need to give reasons for their decision there is no way of knowing for certain whether their decision is right or has been reached for the right reasons.
In 2004, the House of Lords ruled that they could not inquire into the reasoning behind a jury’s decisions. There have been many cases where this code of secrecy has been problematic. In the case of R v Mirza (2004) a Pakistani man was using an interpreter and the jury members begun to spread the theory that the use of an interpreter was merely a trick. As such he was convicted on a majority vote of 10-2. This was discovered when one juror wrote to the judge explaining the miscarriage of justice and the unjust reasons for the verdict.
In the case of Connor and Rollock a juror told the crown court that the jury in which he served convicted both suspects in a stabbing case instead of one purely ‘to teach them both a lesson.’ Of course such reasoning in a case in unjust and a gross misjudgement and would be clear grounds for a retrial.
The only time that an inquiry could be held regarding the reasons for a decision is when the practice occurred outside of the courtroom. Shown in the case of R v Young (Stephen) where the defendant was charged with the murder of two, the jury had been sequestered into a hotel until a verdict could be reached. In this hotel room they held a séance and used a ouija board to ask the dead victims who their murderer was. After a guilty verdict was given, their actions became known and their decision was overruled by the Court of Appeal.
These instances show the strong negative aspect to the secrecy of the jury room. True, it does afford them the freedom to ignore written law and freedom from pressure but there is no way to regulate the competence of their reasoning and decision.
Related to this, their decision may be influenced by the media, and no one outside of the jury room would know their reasoning. Of course before they begin their work in a jury, the judge will ask them to remain unbiased from media coverage. This is particularly an issue in larger cases that are bound to have regular media coverage.
For example, if footage or testimonies not shown in court are being shown on television throughout the proceedings, a jury member’s decision could be shaped by this instead of the evidence they are given in court. Again, these are solid grounds for appeal, which just wastes the court’s time.
Impartiality:
Because they are not connected to anyone involved in the case, the jury’s decisions should be entirely unbiased and impartial. Due to the random selection of juries via the electoral role, the jury should be a rough cross section of society, and may include people of various faiths, races and political backgrounds.
Ideally this mix will cancel out any personal prejudice that a single member of the jury might have. Since they are jointly responsible for the decision no one opinion can overrule the others.
Also, since the jury may never have sat on a case before, they will not be ‘hardened’ to it and automatically vote guilty or not guilty.
Racial Bias:
Although the 12 jurors should have no direct interest in the case itself, there will inevitably be personal prejudices that will shape the way they reach their decision. This is an inevitability in the society in the society we live in. There may be bias against the Police from a member of the jury, which is also why some people with criminal convictions are banned from jury service.
However, the biggest fear is of racial bias against the defendant. Since the jury is chosen at random it could easily result in a jury consisting entirely of white people trying someone from an ethnic minority. Ideally, the number of jurors should cancel out the prejudices of any one member, but with such suspicion of racism in society, it will always be an issue.
Unfortunately, with people’s prejudice being personal and private there is only so far that steps can be taken to eliminate such bias. This means that racial bias is a constant factor counting against the use of a jury. The furthest action that can be taken against it is for any other jury member to report any strong suspicions to the judge. Whereupon he should discharge the jury and have a new one selected. Sadly, this is not always going to happen and very little can be done to prevent it.
Is it worth it?
This is an important question because it involves such a fundamental part of our justice system. The pros have to be weighed against the cons and the decision must be made objectively. To a certain extent the fact that juries have been used for so many years in the past is irrelevant to the question of their continued use. All that matters is: ‘should juries still be allowed to decide the verdict in a trial?’
There are admittedly flaws in the system. The lack of legal knowledge and secrecy conventions allow for corruption and miscarriages of justice. But without them, the system would not be able to operate. Traditional values aside, surely if the use of juries was inappropriate and did not yield decent results, then they would have been abolished many years ago. As it stands, their continued usage over centuries goes some way to proving their effectiveness.
As with any system, it has areas where it could be improved. The jury vetting system employed by the courts could be somewhat more extensive. For example, greater care should be taken when selecting citizens whose first language is not English. This lack of fluency in the primary language used could result in them not understanding the case and could result in perverse decisions. Also, it is not unheard of for an ex-convict to serve on a jury without revealing his previous convictions.
More could also be done to educate the jury on the duties that will be expected of them. Currently they are simply shown a video before being sent to listen to a case. They could be given a brief explanation of what is required of a jury and to talk them through any problems they might have.
Despite the extra expense to the government, it is of the utmost importance that the system is maintained and to ensure that the juries are of the highest quality.
In my personal opinion, I believe that the very existence of juries is a beacon to all countries that are denied democracy within their justice system. The right to trial by one’s peers is one of the most basic rights that we as a nation are afforded. To dismiss such a right while others are not granted it in countries wrought with oppression, to me, seems gross and unjust.
I hope you will agree with me that juries are vital to the justice system of the UK and should be installed around the world in an effort to allow a greater degree of democracy.
Bibliography: