PART A: WHAT PART IS PLAYED BY JURIES AND MAGISTRATES IN THE RESOLUTION OF CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CASES?

BACKGROUND OF LAY MAGISTRATES

            There are two types of magistrate that sit in the Magistrates Court. Firstly, there is a stipendiary magistrate, also known as a District Judge, who is a legally qualified lawyer. Alternatively there is a lay magistrate who is a person who is not legally qualified, yet is asked to sit in on a case with other people to make a decision on the information given.  There are currently around 29,000 lay magistrates working part-time in this country required to work at least 26 half days a year. This could possibly be getting reduced to 24 half days a year as a recommendation made by the Lord Chancellor in 2003. The bench is made up of usually three, yet sometimes two lay magistrates made up of at least one man and one woman, however, before 1996 there used to be up to seven sitting together. A Lay magistrate has to be between the age of 18 and 65 and is appointed by the Lord Chancellor, advised upon by his Advisory Committee, and is judged on six key qualities including good character and social awareness.

LAY MAGISTRATES - CIVIL CASES

            In civil cases Lay magistrates can sit in cases on debts owed to the utilities or non-payment of council tax or television licence, yet the most common case is family matters, including protection against violence, affiliation cases, adoption orders and proceedings under the Children’s Act 1989. However in these four cases a special, trained panel of magistrates would hear the case instead of ordinary ones. Lay magistrates also hear appeals about refusals to grant licenses for gambling and the sale of alcohol.

LAY MAGISTRATES – CRIMINAL CASES

            In criminal cases lay magistrates have more power and deal with small cases where the maximum penalty that can be given is six months imprisonment or up to a £5000 fine. A single magistrate only has power to conduct early administrative hearings and issue search warrants and warrants for arrest. Lay magistrates try 97% of criminal cases and in the other 3% preliminary hearings are heard and are later transferred to the Crown Court. This includes four types of proceedings: early administrative hearings, remand hearings, bail applications and committal proceedings. If hearing a youth trial where the offender is between the age of 10 and 17 they are tried by a specially trained bench of magistrates, similar to the panel for selected family matters in the civil court.

BACKGROUND OF JURIES     

Whereas Lay Magistrates sit in the Magistrates court, juries sit in the Crown Court, the High Court, the County Court and the Coroners’ Court. In different courts they deal with different types of cases, have different roles and have a different number of members. Any person who is between the age of 18 and 70, who is on the electoral roll and have been a citizen of this country for at least five years can be called to do jury service as long as they are not exempt for any of the reasons that follow. It used to be the case that certain people including police officers, barristers and solicitors were exempt from sitting on the jury. However more recently the law has been changed so that no one is ineligible to sit on the jury. You are disqualified from the jury for reasons such as if you are serving a life sentence, you are mentally ill or if you are disabled. You can be fined up to £5000 if you appear for jury service without stating that you are disqualified from it. There are also reasons that enable you to be excused from jury service, including if you have pre-booked at holiday for the same date as your jury service or if you are a member of the armed forces and your commanding officer says you are needed. However, in many of these incidents where excusal is granted, your jury service will usually be postponed to a more appropriate date. During jury service you can claim for travel expenses and any loss of earning.

JURIES – CIVIL CASES

            Civil cases are seen in either the High Court or the County court. Of these two courts the High Court is more senior so therefore has twelve members on the jury compared to only eight in the County Court. In both courts the cases where juries would be present include: defamation, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution and fraud. The most frequent use of a jury is in cases of libel and slander, which is a form of defamation. In civil cases the jury has a ‘duel-role’, where they not only decide whether the claimant has won the case, but also the amount of damages that the defendant has to pay. This is heavily criticised as the damages given varies heavily from jury to jury. In some confusing cases, namely cases of fraud the judge can decide a trial by jury, as the case can be extremely complex and hard for the jury to understand. The opposite action is present in personal injury claims, where a judge will try the case unless one of the parties asks for a jury to be present. However, this is not very often granted due to the complexity of the case.

JURIES – CRIMINAL CASES

            Serious criminal cases are tried in the crown court in front of a jury of twelve members. The cases can include murder, manslaughter or rape. However a jury would only be present if the defendant pleads not guilty otherwise the judge would set a sentence. A Crown Court only hears about 1% of cases, as 97% of criminal cases are heard in the Magistrates Court, and the other 2% are where defendants plead guilty so there is no need for a jury. Even in some cases where the defendant pleads not guilty a jury will not try them as the judge may discharge the case. This usually occurs when the Crown Prosecution Service withdraws the charges because of reasons such as the witness refuses to give evidence. When a jury is present they decide the verdict of the case: whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty.

            A jury of between seven and eleven members can be used in the Coroners’ Court to decide the causes of death in cases such as a prison death or an industrial accident. The Coroner is no longer required to summon a jury in cases of road accidents or suspected homicide. He has a discretionary decision on whether a jury should be used.

CONCLUSION

            As you can see the parts played by both lay magistrates and juries is varying depending of the type of case and the court it is heard in. Lay magistrates have slightly more training than juries, yet are both people from outside the legal profession.

PART B: EXAMINE CRITICALLY THE ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST THE USE OF EITHER JURIES OR LAY MAGISTRATES IN THE ENGLISH LEGAL SYSTEM

            In this essay I am going to examine the arguments for and against juries in the legal system. I will then proceed to talk about what should take the place of the jury system if it were to be dismissed.

BACKGROUND OF JURIES

            The jury is made up of twelve ordinary people as long as they are not ineligible. Juries sit in on around 1% of criminal cases in the Crown Court and lesser cases in Civil Courts. They usually consist of twelve members apart from in the County or Coroners’ Court where the numbers are eight or seven to eleven respectively. Juries have to make their decision upon one key question that was brought into the limelight due to the case of Woolmington v DPP: “Is the defendant guilty beyond all reasonable doubt?”

ARGUMENTS FOR JURIES

            In The English Legal System by Jacqueline Martin it is said that, “12 strangers who have no legal knowledge and without any training to decide what may be complex and technical points is an absurd one.” But to be completely honest is it really that absurd? When you think back through times, a system like this one has been in practise for many years and it has worked fine up until now, so why is the change necessary? This current jury system gives people from all walks of life the chance to see how the law works first hand, and have the freedom to make a decision.

            When the jury passes the verdict of a case, no reason of how the jury came to their decision have to be given. This helps promote the idea of fairness, also known as jury equity. A good example of this is in Ponting’s Case (1984), where a civil servant leaked information, yet he pleaded not guilty, as he said that his actions were in the public’s interest. In this case the jury refused to convict even if there was no defence. Cases like this help promote fairness and equality in the legal system.

            Having the use of a jury in the courtroom, means that the legally qualified members of the case need to ensure that the law is kept simple and easy to understand. This is useful for the defendant as it is therefore easier for them to understand what is going on in the case. This benefits all members of the courtroom, as everyone can understand what is going on, and you can be more certain that the jury have come to the correct decision for the right reasons.

            A big benefit of the jury system is that they discuss the verdict in secrecy. This means that they are free from the outside world and do not feel pressed to make a decision either way. It is also said that people would be less willing to do jury service if their discussions were to be made public, and their verdicts may be swayed making their decision unjust and unfair.

            A jury should not be connected to anyone in the case, ensuring the defendant receives a fair trial. In theory the jury should contain a cross-section of society, with men, women, white and people from ethnic minorities well represented. This should also help to cancel out biases and prejudices, as no person alone is entirely responsible for the decision.

            A definite argument for juries is that it is very hard to bribe the jury thanks to the majority verdict. This was introduced in 1967 and allows either a 10-2 or an 11-1 vote. This means a case is no longer thrown out if there is not a unanimous decision, so the chance for a fairer trial is improved. Therefore if a jury was bribed, more than one member would have to be, and they are unlikely to get away with it. Another word for bribing the jury is ‘jury nobbling’. About 20% of convictions are by majority verdicts, so it is visible that most are unanimous decisions.

            A final argument for keeping juries is that twelve ordinary people find it easier to tell if someone is lying. This is because it is easier to persuade one person than twelve. This helps ensure that the court notices liars and the correct sentence is given duly.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST JURIES

            A big criticism of the jury system is that although the system is intended to represent a wide cross-section of society, in practise it is rather narrow. This can be due to many reasons, as there are high excusal and disqualification rates and that the homeless, who represent a big section of society, cannot vote because they are not on the electoral register. Also women are poorly represented as they are relied upon to look after children, and not all ethnic minorities have lived in this country for five years. However, the cross-section did widen when it was made compulsory for everyone to do jury service and no one is ineligible so it now includes a lot more citizens.

            Although it was stated earlier that having all discussions by the jury members in secret was an advantage, it is also a disadvantage. This is because section eight of the Contempt Of Court Act 1981 states that it is a criminal offence to talk about any matters discussed in private, so therefore no inquiry is allowed to be made into why the jury came upon their decision.  This means that the jury may have reached their decision for the wrong reasons so the defendant has had an unfair trial. This is variably different to when a judge makes a verdict, as they have to give reasoning for their choice, where the defendant can appeal if an error is made.

            It was stated earlier that the fairness used in law is a good thing as it helps to keep equality in the case. However, this can also be a disadvantage as it means the jury will ignore unwarranted law, which means a perverse decision would have been made and not all the law was counted for. This means an unjust decision would have been made based on only some of the facts, rather than all relevant issues displayed. As demonstrated in the case R v Randle and Pottle (1991), where the defendant was charged for helping a spy escape from prison 25 years ago, however the jury decided to acquit the defendant, possibly due to the amount of time since the deed.

There is currently much bias in juries and this can mean unfair decision have been made. For example a case involving a defendant from an ethnic minority being tried by twelve white people may be seen as unfair by the defendant, even though it is not necessarily the case. In a case such as this one it would seem as though the defendant would be biased against in court. However this is improving as criminals that may have bias towards the police are disqualified from being a member of the jury. But it is never possible to create the perfect system for everyone.

            In a case like Michael Jackson’s trial earlier this year it was noticeable that there was a lot of media coverage. This can be a major disadvantage in high profile cases where it could mean that the jury could be persuaded to make a decision based on media coverage rather than what they have heard in the case. This occurred in the case R v West (1996) where the defendant was convicted for killing ten young girls. This meant that the media were constantly trying to get stories and could have an effect of the jury. After found guilty the defendant appealed against the verdict stating that it was impossible to have a fair case due to the intense coverage, however this appeal was rejected on the grounds that the judge had pre-warned the jury.

            From research carried out in 1992, it has been found out that only 56% of the jury fully understood the case, and 0.2% of jurors couldn’t even understand the English. This is a worrying situation, as it means that much of the jury will be making decisions based on small amounts of the case heard rather than understanding the case and making a certain decision on what happened. Not understanding a case is especially true in fraud trials. It is known that they are much harder to understand, and that a jury may not understand the case and make a wrong decision, yet you cannot find out if they have or not as they do not give reasons for their decision, unlike a judge. This also means that the defendant cannot appeal against a jury, which could be unfair for the defendant. This evidently shows that more needs to be done to ensure the whole jury fully understand the case. This may mean that the jury needs a little more training than a 30-minute video watched at the beginning of their service.

            There have been many criticisms that juries acquit too many defendants with only 40% of not guilty pleads convicted. Of the 60% acquittals over half of them drop the case at last minute and display no evidence as orders from the judge. This is before the jury is even sworn in. 15 of the 60% is also where the jury acquits the defendant on recommendation from the judge, so in actual fact there are less than 40% acquittals where there has been no direction from the judge.

            Jury service is very unpopular among people and they do not wish to participate. This means that some jurors would rush a decision so that the case ended quicker, and would mean the defendant would not get a fair trial. Jurors also do not want the burden of thinking that if they made a decision that a member of the trial was unhappy with they may have to have police protection fore the rest of their lives.

            In civil cases the jury has a duel role, and as well as deciding the verdict they also decide the damages. This is very unreasonable as they do not know a sensible amount, and in a Defamation case it has even been known for damages to reach £1.5 million. This is an unrealistic amount to pay back, yet it has to be paid. However, in section eight of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, it now states that if excessive or inadequate damages are given they are allowed to order a new trial.

            A final disadvantage of juries is that they are expensive, especially in civil cases. This is due to a lot of initial administrative work; that is not only expensive but time consuming, followed by jury members claiming back money. Also in civil cases all these costs have to be paid by the losing party.

ALTERNATIVES TO JURIES

            If juries were to be removed the question is what would take their place. One possibility would be to have a trial by a single judge. This would produce a more predictable outcome and would be cheaper, however in cases such as this one there is less public confidence. It is said that the acquittal rate would be lower with a single judge as they are more prosecution based, and would be harsh on the defendant.

            Another option is to have a panel of judges.  This would give a wider view of society, but they will all be of a middle or higher class therefore not completely fair to the lower class. However it would be much more expensive to have three or five judges sitting together.

            A third option would be to have a judge and lay people to try the case. This would ensure a fairer trial and would be very useful for difficult to understand cases, and would produce a fairer outcome.

            The final option would be to have a mini jury of perhaps six or nine members. This would save time, as it is easier to find smaller amounts of people that are not excused, however you will still have the same basic problems with the current jury system.

CONCLUSION

            As you can see there are many arguments for and especially against juries, however, I believe that the current system should be kept the way it is. I believe that the jury system has worked for many years and has no need for change. It is true that some people say it needs to be modernised and move with the times, but why change a system that has much public confidence. Ergo I believe the jury system should be kept in the English Legal System.