Magistrates & Juries - LAS-2

Charlotte Mitchell-Dunne

Question A- what part is played by juries and lay magistrates in the resolution of civil and criminal cases?   (40 marks)

In this essay I am going to explain what juries and lay magistrates are and what their roles are within the current legal system. I will start by examining what a jury is and the role it undertakes, then I will divide this into two main areas, one dealing with jury’s role within the civil courts and the other with its role within the criminal courts. Finally I will briefly explain the restrictions on people’s entitlement to a jury and the situations in which it is at the client’s discretion whether to have a jury present or not. After this I will deal with the section on magistrates by dividing it into two sections and explaining each in turn paying particular attention to their roles within the legal system. I will also explain their legal entitlements as a member of the judiciary and the process in which they are selected

What is a Jury?

Juries have been used in the legal system for over 1000 years originally they were used for local knowledge and As law third edition explains that historically a jury was made up of a group of people who either knew the defendant or victim, had seen the incident that took place or lived near where the allegation was made.

This is obviously the reverse situation today as the jury must now be anonymous and amorphous-meaning they are unknown to those taking part in the trial. Before 1854 all common law actions were tried by jury, but the law was changed in 1854 allowing parties to be able to choose whether to have a jury therefore reducing the number of sitting juries this changed again in 1933 with the administration of justice act further limiting the use of juries, by removing them from most contact cases and cases which contain complex information. Now Jury’s only sit in about 1% of all cases. As law by Elliott and Quinn explains that a jury is supposed to reflect a wide variety of society. It explains that the simplistic view of their job is that they produce a verdict of either guilty or not guilty based on pure fact the judge will advise the jury on sections of the law and from this advise they must reach a verdict. It is said that a jury is vital for an effective democracy this point is stressed by Lord Devlin who explains that ‘juries are the lamps that show that freedom lives’. When a jury reaches a decision it must be unanimous although in some case the judge will accept the common example of a 10-2 or 11-1 majority. This ensures a fair decision.

    Juries are made up of 12 members in the crown and high court and 8 members in the county court. Jury members are selected from the voter’s role and summonses are sent out to these people, they must then go through a stage of vetting which checks that they have no recent criminal convictions, as people sentenced to five years or more imprisonment are disqualified for life from doing jury service.

No one is exempt from doing jury service unless they are disqualified or excused therefore everyone must attend. The only qualification to be a jury member is that you are between 18 and 70, are registered to vote and are a resident in the UK. 

A jury's role in the criminal courts

As law by Elliott and Quinn explains that despite the symbolic importance of a juries in the criminal justice system, they actually only operate in a minority of cases. The criminal cases system is split up into three categories summery only offences-which the magistrate courts try, indictable offences- tried in the crown court and either way cases which can be heard in either the magistrates court or the crown court, this is down to the discretion of the defendant and it is said that defendants prefer to have a trial by jury, as they are less likely to convict, as it is said that with juries it is easier to prove doubt. Juries only decide cases in the crown court and in a large number of cases the defendant pleads guilty leaving no need for a jury, this is why only around 30,000 trials are heard. The jury’s role in a crown court case is to find the defendant guilty or not guilty, with the judge deciding the points of law and the jury deciding on the facts. The jury is asked to consider that the defendant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. This decision takes place in secret and the jury are not asked the reasoning’s for their verdict, this ensures freedom of discussion and protects the jury from outside influences, as explained before the jury must come to a majority verdict. Lord Devlin explains that the jury system in criminal cases has the ‘best blend of logic and common sense’ as he believes a jury is surely there best instrument in deciding a witnesses credibility and believes they deliver a just verdict rather than a verdict coming from one person. He explains that in a criminal case a jury has to make four decisions these are, firstly whether the prosecution has proved its case against the defendant, secondly they must ensure the independence and quality of the judges, thirdly they give protection against law that an ordinary person may find oppressive –meaning they must consider whether the punishment they will face is just for the crime they committed and finally they must make sure that the investigating officers have conducted a fair investigation-meaning they must make sure that the investigating officers are not bulling the defendant.

A jury’s role in a civil case

When a jury is used in a civil case they must not only decide who wins the case and must also decide the amount of settlement to be rewarded. The complete A-z law handbook explains that in 1981 the Supreme Court act decided that juries had the right to trial cases in defamation, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution and fraud. The English legal system by Jacqueline martin explains that all these cases involve character or reputation and it is for this reason that a jury is used, as it is important to obtain a wider view to deliver a fair verdict. It  is also possible to ask for a jury in a personal injury claim dealt with by the Queen’s Bench Division of the high court, but it must be remembered that these cases are very rare as they often involve complex details, which most jury’s could not make an informed decision on. There have been many cases in which the decision has been made that a jury should not sit these include Ward v James and Singh v London underground. Very few civil cases are tried using juries as they are often more complex than criminal cases and most civil cases are dealt with by lay magistrates.

What are lay magistrates?

A Lay- person in the context of a lay magistrate is a person with no legal qualifications or training in law. Their purpose is to provide experience of society and ensure that the common people’s values are represented when delivering a verdict. Most magistrates are lay magistrates and they are also referred to as justices of the peace. There are roughly 30,000 lay magistrates sitting on the bench and they usually sit in threes but section 49 of the crime and disorder act 1998 allows single magistrates to exercise certain powers when administering justice. All magistrates are appointed by the Lord Chancellor on the advice of the local advisory committees for each area. To become a Lay magistrate a person must be between the ages of 18 to 65 but this requirement has only recently come into place, with the requirement being dropped from 21 to 18 in 2003. A lay magistrate must have six key qualities to enable them to be appointed, these ensure that the magistrate is of sound mind and judgement.  Most magistrates are nominated by groups such as trade unions but a person can nominate themselves to partake in the role. The maximum sentence a lay magistrate can give if up to 6 months imprisonment and a £5000 fine. Therefore there power is restricted enabling them to only deal with certain cases. It is said that magistrates are involved in 97% of cases whether this is in the pulmonary stages or the final sentencing; therefore it is clear to see that they play a vital role within the legal system.

Lay magistrates role within the criminal court

Much like juries a lay magistrate’s role is mainly in the criminal courts. As Law explains that magistrates conduct summary trials-these are minor cases only dealt with within the magistrates courts, they also sentence defendants who plead of are found guilty and hold committal proceedings in indictable offences-these are offences of a serious nature and finally they deal with hybrid offences, when a defendant has asked to have his case heard in the crown court. They will also deal with cases such as bail applications, remand hearings and committal proceedings. They will be advised by a court clerk on the matters of the law and from this they are expected to make an informed decision and deliver an apt verdict and sentence. As explained before the magistrate can only sentence a person to the maximum of 6 months imprisonment and fine them up to £5000m pounds, but the criminal justice bill of 2002 had provisions to extend magistrates sentencing power to a year or up to 15 month, therefore it is worth noting that this may be the case in future years.

Lay magistrates role within the civil court

A magistrate’s role within the civil courts consists of licensing and family matters and they often deal with some debt work. The complete A-z laws handbook explains that most civil work includes issuing licences for pub and restaurants to sell alcohol, enforcing payment of council tax and hearing family cases about custody of children but not divorce. They will also deal with debt owed on utilities and non payment of TV licences. Some specially qualified lay magistrates will deal with issues within the youth courts; these will be most crimes except for those of a serious nature. They will try 10 to 17 year olds.

Conclusion

In conclusion both juries and lay magistrates play a key role within the administration of justice in this country. They both have a part to play in civil and criminal system but their role is obviously wider in the criminal court system

.......................................................

Question B - Examine critically the arguments for and against the use of either Juries or Lay Magistrates in the English Legal system. (6Qmarks)

In this essay I am going to present the arguments for and against the use of juries in the English legal system. I will divide my essay into two main sections the first dealing with the advantages of juries within the English legal system and the second dealing with the disadvantages. Within these areas I will also include sub headings breaking down each argument fully. 1 will also use cases and media example to support my argument and finally I will explain some alternative to trial by jury.

The advantages of juries \within the English legal system
It could be said that there are many advantages to having a jury in the English legal system and it must be considered that li is the English legal system has adopted juries into their judiciary system for over 1000 years therefore it must be considered that it must have weighty benefits.

Public participation
It could be said that public participation is one of the main focal point for having a jury in the English legal system. AS Law by Elliot and Quinn explains that a jury allows ordinary people to participate in the administration of justice meaning that the verdict is seen as a representation of societies view rather than the view of just one member of the judiciary system. It explains that Lord Dennin exclaimed that jury service gives ^ordinary folk their finest lesson in citizenship^fPublie participation also allows the defendant to be judge by their peers; this often raises confidence in the legal system. Having a jury present may be considered to be a fairer system. It should be taken into consideration that the defendant and prosecution will always seek justice therefore they may believe that the elitist judiciary system made up of qualified people from roughly the .same back ground may not be able to provide them with this, this is why public participation is needed as it ensure that justice is not only done but it is seen to be done.

Certainty
Juries provide certainly, as they only have to deliver a guilty or not guilty verdict. This leaves no room for confusion and cannot be misinterpreted therefore the decision is not open for dispute. This is very important as it ensure there can be no grounds for appeal on the juries verdict unless it was made for the wrong reasons and this is very hard to find out as the juries decision is made in secret. Although a juries decisions was questioned in the case R Vs Young. In this case the jury stayed overnight in a hotel, as they had not reached a verdict the during the day, while the staying at the hotel members of the jury used an ouija board to decide the defendants verdict. The case was obviously quashed as the court fell able to inquire into the event as they had taken place out side of the court. Obviously this [s only one example of a rare case and the likelihood of a challenge to the jury's verdict is very small.

Jurors are able to judge on conscience
The fact that jurors are able to judge according to conscience is strengthen by the fact that they do not have to explain thew reasoning for reaching a certain verdict. This means they are given protection from billing and oppression some limes exercised by the prosecution, therefore enabling them to make a fair decision based on their beliefs. The Bushell's case of 1670 also makes sure that juries can be forced into a verdict as it established that the jury are the sole judges of the fact and that they cannot be penalised for having a different view to the judges. I believe the fact that the juries have the ultimate right to decide a verdict also protects them in certain ways against oppression or bulling.
Jurors come from a wider cross section of society

Jurors come from a wider cross section of society

The fact that jurors arc said to have come from a wide section of society enables should enable them to give the views of society as a whole. This also ensures that the jury are able to bring knowledge and experience of different backgrounds as they are thought to have different Life experiences to the usual stereotypical member of the judicial system, who are believed to be a white males from a middle class background, who attended private schooling. It could also be argued that the jury could sympathize with the both parties is the case as the jury would have local knowledge and understanding of their areas problems.

Twelve opinions are better than one
The statement twelve opinions are better that one must be taken into consideration when analysing the advantages and disadvantages of juries in the English legal system. Ii must be taken into consideration that the public and the defendant would see the decision as a fairer as it is made by 12 people rather than just one person.

Independence of a jury
I believe that it is important to consider that when a case Is not decided by the jury, the verdict is delivered by a member of the judiciary who are organised and orchestrated by the slate. I believe this shows a clear advantage of having a jury as allows the verdict to be impartial and seem fairer to the parties involved. This leads to public confidence in the judiciary system.

Impartiality

Most juries should be impartial, as they are not usually connected to other cases. As the jury is selected from a cross section of society, this ensures that extreme views will cancel each other out. This is seen to be fairer as it provides a fairer which shows a balance in opinion rather than a verdict than is made by one person who could have extreme views, therefore giving an unbalanced opinion which is clearly unfair.

Disadvantages of juries within the English, legal system
Time and expense

Although there are many advantages for juries within the English legal system, there are many disadvantages. The main disadvantage of a case being heard by a juror is the fact that they are lengthier and more expensive. It must be taken into consideration that a jury trial is more expensive than that of a trial in the magistrate's court. AS law by Elliott and Quinn explains that a Crown Court costs the taxpayer £7400 per day, compared to a mere £1000 that the magistrate’s court costs. It also explains that the jury spend a lot of time waiting around to be summoned into the court room, this time me would not be waited if cases were heard by qualified judges. Finally it must be noted that juries need the law explained to them, to be able to make reasonable judgement, this takes up further time which would be needed if the case was dealt with by a qualified person within the judiciary.

Lack Of competence

This is another disadvantage in juries. Lord Denning argues that because jurors are taken, from such a wide section of society they are not competent to perform the task. Since changes made in 1972 a wider contingent of people were made eligible for jury service, this meant that many jurors summoned were not intelligent or educated enough to perform the task of jury service properly. Denning suggests that jurors should be selected in much the same way, as magistrates are ‘The Roskill Committee supports Denning’s Theory and explained that trial by random jury was not a satisfactory way of achieving justice. This basically means that it is unfair to randomly select a jury, as many people may not be intelligent enough to handle the case competently, therefore restricting their ability to make an informed decision. It must also be noted that serving on a jury requires no educational qualification, language abilities or comprehension requirements making it is possible for someone with no concept of what is going on to sit on a jury and hear a case. '

Juries are more likely to acquit

AS law explains that research by the Home Office found that juries were twice as likely to acquit, people could say this was because their inability to perform the role or because they sympathise with the defendant. This is obviously a disadvantage as it shows the juries decision to be unfair and incompetent, therefore causing an unfair verdict to be delivered. This therefore undermines the whole system entirely.

Bias
An important point that must be considered is the fact that juries are just ordinary members of the public. Therefore they may be for or against a. certain group based purely on a preconception, for example they may favor attractive member’s of the opposite sex or be prejudcied towards a member of the police department. AS law by Elliot and Quinn explains that this is a particular problem in libel cases, as often the jury decides to award money to famous people as they often have a preconceived notion which is unfair towards newspapers. An example of this includes the £500,000 awarded to Jeffery Archer in 1987. There are also problems with racist juries. In the cases Sander VS United Kingdom, Sander took his cases to the European Courts of Human Rights. This was because a jury member had passed a note to the judge during his trial explaining that they believed a member of the jury to be racist, the judge had not dealt with this in the correct manner. This therefore enabled Sander to go to the European court of appeal. Racist juries are a huge disadvantage to the jury system, as they will never deliver a fair verdict. It also must be considered that it is very hard to prove whether a jury is racist; because all jury discussion and decisions take place in secret.
Finally a jury can also be influenced by local bias, for example they may be more likely to deliver a guilty verdict to a person who is believed to have committed a car theft, if car theft is a frequent occurrence in their local area. Bias is also a huge disadvantage of a jury system, as bias can affect the outcome of a verdict and prevents a competent decision being reached. It also must be considered that a juror could be svayed by-'good advocacy skills and not concentrate on the fundamental facts of a case.

Jury Nobbling
Jury nobbling has lead to many suspensions of juries, the most famous of these was the suspension of the jury which was sitting on a terrorist offence in Ireland. Jury nobbling is an obvious threat to the reliability of a verdict. Yet it must be remembered that nobbling the jury is a very hard task because the judge will only accept a majority verdict of 10-2orl 1-11 meaning that the jury must have at least three corrupt jurors in any one case. The 1994 criminal justice and public order act gave more protection to jury members by making it an offence to intimidate or threaten to harm a member of the jury physically or financially. So although Jury nobbling is a huge disadvantage to the jury system, it does not pose that much of a threat, yet it is impossible to prevent its occurrence.

Lack of reason
Many juries will never fully understand court procedures, as most of them will not
posses legal qualifications. The fact must be considered that the jury only have to return to the court and state their verdict, they do not have to explain their reasoning for their decision, enabling it to be a possibility that they had lack of reasoning when coming to a verdict. An example of this is that it could be the case that they just decided their verdict based upon the party they favored. This causes jury to make an unfair decision, which could have been prevented if a judge had tried the case. Also it must be considered that when a judge sits alone, he or she must makes a judgement and then explain their reasoning for coming to this judgement, therefore should this not be the case for a jury.

Conclusion
The English Legal system has a policy of compulsory jury service; this is often very unpopular with members of the public, as no one can refuse to do this duty. This could create a situation, in which jurors become resentful, which may lead them to make unsatisfactory and uninformed decision. This could apply to jurors who want to leave jury service as quick a possible, it could be argued that they may go along with the majority verdict even if it is contrary to their own beliefs, just to speed the decision process. This is a great disadvantages, as it docs not enable a. fair and accurate verdict, therefore underlies the principles of (he jury system.
No counseling offered to members of the jury
In cases that involve serious crimes of violence, for example rape, murder or child abuse, members of the jury may have to hear and observe disturbing evidence, which may leave them becoming deeply distressed. They may have to observe closely graphic photograph of tap evidence. By the end of the case jury members may be dealing with stress caused by the case. The courts offer no counseling and it is only given in extreme cases when the jury member requests it. This means that the court expects people to go back to their ordinary lives and forget about what they have seen or heard. This is obviously a great disadvantage as it is a potential danger to other jurors and themselves and is a very unfair burden thrust upon the jurors by the courts.

Conclusion
In conclusion although (here arc a number of disadvantages to the jury system I believe overall it is a fairway of delivering a verdict which not only represents me views of society, but allows there 10 be independent within the judiciary system as the jury delivering [he verdict is not organised and orchestrated by the state. Therefore I agree with Lord Delvin's statement. which declared that juries are the lamps that show that freedom lives' and would say that juries are essential when administering justice

Bibliography for both Essays A an B
The English Legal System- Jacqueline Martin AS Law- HI Hot and Quinn
AS Law third edition-Mary Charman , Bobby Vanstone and Liz Sherrat
The English Legal system Resources Workbook- Jacqueline Martin
The complete A-Z Laws Handbook- Jacqueline Martin and Mary Gibbins "00" Short listed Essay
Class Material
Internet quote for Lord Denning