Written by Simarjot Judge.
History of the Jury
The Magna Carta reads of a person’s right to trial by ‘the lawful judgement of his peers.’ This is a reference to what we now call a Jury.
The Jury
A Jury is a collection of a group of randomly selected people who qualify as jurors and are on the electoral register. People with convictions, mental orders, the clergy and other people concerned with the Administration of Justice do not qualify.
A Jury’s involvement in Criminal Cases
In criminal cases, trial by jury is found in the Crown Court. It is in this court where they decide whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty. They listen to evidence presented by the prosecution and the defence and then reach a verdict based entirely of FACTS of the case. They then decide whether the defendant should be convicted of the charge or acquitted of the charge made against them. If they find the defendant guilty, “the jury must believe that the defendant is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt”. In 1967, Majority verdicts were introduced. If there is a full jury (12 people) the verdict can be given 10-2 or 11-1 either for guilty or not guilty. This ensures that there is a universal agreement “beyond any reasonable doubt” that they jury is exceptionally sure of their verdict. If the jury has fallen below 12, then only one can disagree with the verdict. The introduction of Majority verdicts was because of the fear of the jurors being bribed or intimidated by associates of the defendant into voting for a not guilty verdict. In the case of Unanimous verdicts, only one member need be bribed to cause a stalemate in which the jury were unable to reach a decision. Also, the acquittal rates were too high and it was considered that Majority verdicts would result in more convictions.
If the judge decides that the prosecution’s evidence has not made out a case against the defendant, he has the power to direct the jury to acquit the defendant.
However, jury trials account for less than 1 per cent of all criminal trials because almost 97% of cases are dealt with in the Magistrates’ Court because most crimes are “summary offences”. In the few cases which do reach the Crown Court, about two out of every three defendants will plead guilty. If the defendant pleads not guilty, he/she will not go before a jury as the case will be discharged by judge without any trial. In the Crown Court, a jury has twelve members.
While jurors are involved in indictable offences or other high profile cases, it is possible for the jury to be “sequestered”. This means that the jury cannot go home to their families, instead they must stay together. To the Judge and everyone else concerned with the case, this limits the probability of outside interference and most importantly the chance of a verdict which has been discussed with people other than fellow jurors. Section 17(3) of the Juries Act 1974 states that a foreman should be elected. It is the foreman’s job to speak for the jury and announce the numbers both agreeing and disagreeing with the verdict in open court.
A Jury’s involvement in Civil Cases
Civil Juries are found in the High Court (Queens Bench Division). Within this division, civil cases such as fraud, malicious prosecution, defamation and false imprisonment are dealt with and these cases are the only civil cases in which a jury is found.
The objective of a civil jury is to decide two things. One: the liability of the parties in the case and, two: the amount of damages that will be awarded. Because juries change for each case, the settlement awards can vary tremendously because each jury has its own ideas. Consequently, it is very difficult for Lawyers to advice on settlements fundamentally because of the unpredictability. This is despite the judge looking back to past awards and applying an inflation factor so that there is a level of consistency between similar cases.
To rectify this problem Parliament ratified section eight of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. This, allows the Court of Appeal to order a new trial or substitute such sum as appears proper to the court, if they feel the damages were excessive or inadequate. This was used in Rantzen v Mirror Group Newspapers when the award given to Esther Rantzen was reduced from £250,000 to £110,000.
The jury never has to explain its decision – the judge always gives a judgement which makes it easier to see if there are good grounds for an appeal.
Expense
Civil cases are expensive as they are, and the use of a jury adds to this as the case is likely to last longer. When the case reaches its conclusion, the losing party will have to pay all the costs of the case which may amount to hundreds of thousands of pounds. Because of this, the Lord Chancellor has introduced some reforms so that defamation actions will be less costly. Parties can now agree that their case should be transferred to the County Court. Here a jury of eight may be used and the trial is likely to be less expensive. If the claimant seeks a limited sum of £10,000, then it is possible under The Defamation Act 1996 for the case to be tried with a judge alone without a jury.
Lay Magistrates
Lay Magistrates are people who are not qualified but make decisions in our courts. They mainly sit in the Magistrates Court and the Crown Court. Because they are not qualified, within the court there is something called Clerks of the Court and they are trained barrister/lawyers. They inform/advise the Lay Magistrates of the Law so that they can make informed decisions. Each magistrate is expected to undertake a fair share of the work of the Bench. The Lord Chancellor requires that a magistrate should sit for at least 26 half days each year and endeavour to be available to sit for up to 35 half days each year. Magistrates should be prepared to sit for a whole day if necessary. Magistrates normally exercise their duties as part of a bench of three.
Lay Magistrates in criminal cases
Over 95% of all criminal cases are dealt with by magistrates, either in the Adult Court, or in the Youth Court. The work involves, amongst other things, deciding on applications for bail, whether a defendant is guilty or not and passing sentence as appropriate. For a single criminal offence committed by an adult, magistrates' sentencing powers include the imposition of fines, community service orders, probation orders or a period of not more than six months in custody. Magistrates may also sit in the Crown Court with a judge to hear appeals from Magistrates' Courts against conviction or sentence and proceedings on committal to the Crown Court for sentence.
Civil matters
Magistrates also decide many civil matters, particularly in relation to family work. Specially selected and trained members of the Family Court Panels deal with a wide range of matters, most of which arise from the breakdown of marriage e.g. making orders for residence of and contact with children. Proceedings relating to the care and control of children are also dealt with in Family Proceedings Courts. The civil jurisdiction also involves the enforcement of financial penalties and orders such as those in respect of non payment of council tax.
October 2004.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Written by Simarjot Judge
I see many problems with the use of juries in the English Legal System and I intend to work through these problems systematically and suggest reforms when suitable.
Criticism one
I question the success of the selection process. With so many rules for disqualification and excusals, it makes finding a jury very difficult. Not everyone is on the electoral roll and this was indicated when poll tax was operating in the early 1990’s because the number of people registered to vote went down by well over a million. The population in 2001 provided by a census was 49,138,831 people. This is a truly large amount of people, but event taking a million of these people away from possible jury duty is a large amount because of the difficulties in selection anyway.
The electoral register only accounts for those with residence. This immediately disqualifies the homeless; however the question begs to be asked on whether society would accept a homeless person on a jury.
The point of random selection is to give a representative sample of the population. Section 5 of the Juries Act 1974 states that before a case begins, the prosecution and the defence have certain rights to challenge one or more of the jurors. They can challenge the whole jury on the basis that it has been chosen in an unrepresentative or biased way. A successful example of this was the ‘Romford’ jury at the Old Bailey in 1993, when out of a panel of 12 jurors, 9 were from Romford.
Reforms: choose jurors in another way. I would set up a new organisation which targets specifically Jury Service. I have found that not many people understand the full implication of being on the electoral register – they have no understanding of how jurors are selected. To battle this, there needs to be a media campaign which makes the nation aware.
Criticism two
I do not believe that there are enough checks made to ensure the integrity of a prospective juror. If we look at the American Legal System, they are allowed to do extensive research and check background information. This process is also known as vetting. In some cases, lawyer firms go to extreme measures such as hiring a private detective to note down the prospective jurors whereabouts. With this information they can present to the court their conclusions on whether the juror is suitable or not.
The main reason they can do this is because of the size of their country and the availability of their jury’s. They can afford to lay off members of the jury and replace them whereas the English Legal System cannot because of various reasons such as: selection process, disqualifications, and rights of excusal. It is possible for a juror to get out of jury service because of the restrictions imposed on the selection of them.
In a survey of Inner London juries, it was seen that one in every 24 jurors was disqualified. In one instance at Snaresbrook Crown Court, a man with fifteen previous convictions sat as a juror in three cases and was the jury foreman in two of them. Later, he admitted that as far as he was concerned all defendants were not guilty unless they “had been molesting kids.” This is extremely worrying to me as he obviously passed on a not guilty verdict to someone who may have been guilty. This reiterates the need for better selection processes so that vetting can be introduced.
Reforms: before this criticism can be addressed with due attention, criticism one needs to be addressed. When the selection process encourages more jurors, then we can afford to go through vetting procedures to get rid of any bias or anything which will hinder a verdict based on fact.
Criticism three
A widespread use of discretionary excusals means that juries are prevented from being a true cross-section of the local population. The main reasons for excusals include medical conditions, looking after children or elderly relatives and business commitments. It was reported that so many young mothers were excused that women were under-represented on juries. However, the research in 1993 by Zander and Henderson found that women were proportionally represented, so this problem may no longer exist.
Reforms: Being a single mother is not an excuse to miss jury duty. Being a single mother doesn’t make you an exceptional difference from the remainder of society and this needs to be addressed.
Looking past the selection process
Once a suitable jury has been found there are many positive reasons for their continuance.
In the Magna Carta it reads of a person’s right to trial by ‘the lawful judgement of his peers.’ I agree with this statement entirely, but with so many social classes, is it possible to be judgemental of another class without being biased?
On first impressions, asking 12 strangers who have no legal knowledge and without any training to decide what may be complex and technical points is somewhat absurd. Despite this, the jury is considered a benchmark in democracy. It is a fundamental aspect of society.
I am not critical of using juries, I am just critical of the manner in which they are selected.
Outside influences/life experiences
The possibility for bias is endless when it comes to jurors. They may have been through many experiences and come out with a strong opinion about a certain area of the law. This is the main reason that ex convicts are disqualified from jury duty – something I agree with to a certain extent. However, I think in some cases it would be useful to have ex convicts on a jury so that that can empathise with the defendant’s situation. But, in order for this to happen, I would recommend a severe cross-examination of that ex convict to ensure they are not bitter or bear a grudge against the English Legal System. This makes the idea wholly impractical as it would waste more of the taxpayer’s money.
Media Coverage can also influence the jury’s decision and for this reason, I would put the jury into a hotel, or rented accommodation for the entirety of the trial so that they do not come into contact with family members. This however, is also expensive – therefore impractical. The question begs to be asked: how much do we value the English Legal System. Is it worth revamping the entire process and injecting more money into it so that it is more efficient, or do people consider it a worthy cause which doesn’t need a major revamp.
Ethnic Minorities
Ethnic minorities are not represented proportionally in the courts of law and this situation needs to be addressed. Even if they are a minority, they are still part of our society and so they need to be recognised.
Conclusion
Despite my heavy criticisms, it should be noted that these criticisms lie within the selection of juries and not the actual concept itself. I am a firm believer in trial by your peers because it is fair. Being tried by a lawyer is not fair because they are from an entirely different background and they have an exclusive legal mind.
My main reformations would lie in raising awareness of jury duty and make it a public certainty such as stopping at red traffic lights. The reformations I suggest require extra funding as it can’t work on taxpayers money alone.
In my view, there is no alternative method to try criminals because it would be unjust. Despite the complications in legal evidence, I see no reason why the jury should be abolished now, after 800 or so years.
October 2004.
Credits/Bibliography
http://www.wordiq.com
http://www.dictionary.com
http://www.bl.uk/collections/treasures/magna.html