Task 4 – Evaluate the effectiveness of Lay personnel in the English courts (D1)
1|Page
, In this report I will evaluate the effectiveness of lay personnel within the English
courts as well as the advantages and disadvantages of using juries in the Crown
Court as well as evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of using magistrates as
opposed to a district judge.
Advantages of using juries in the Crown Court
An advantage of using juries in the Crown Court is that juries are cross- sectioned.
This means that jurors reflect the views of the society and are representative of the
wider society. They are representative of the wider Society due to being selected
from the electoral register at random. This leads to a balanced decision making
when jury is retiring to form a verdict. It is also impartial as they weigh evidence
based on facts as well as they might also look at perspective of the society. If it
would benefit them or not. This is why they are impartial and have the public
confidence behind the name to make the decision for the public.
Another advantage is that, the jury is an open certainty. Asking 12 outsiders who
have no legitimate information and with no preparation to choose what might be
unpredictable. However, the jury is viewed as one of the basics of an equitable
society. The privilege to be attempted by one's friends is a bastion of freedom
against the state. This has been upheld by famous judges. For instance, Lord Devlin
said ‘juries are the light that shows that freedom lives.’ The custom of a hearing by
jury is old and individuals appear to believe in the unprejudiced nature and
reasonableness of a jury hearing.
As well as Jury equity, jurors are not lawful specialists. They will undoubtedly pursue
the point of reference of past cases or even Acts of Parliament. They don't need to
give explanations behind their decision, and it is workable for them to choose cases
on their concept of 'decency. This is now and then alluded to as jury value. A few
cases have demonstrated the significance of this. Specifically, Ponting's case (1984).
Example of this is in 2008 where the jury cleared a mother of endeavouring to kill her
little girl who had ended it all. Her daughter was age, 31, and had been sick for a
long time. She had infused herself with an overdose of morphine. The mother had
given her daughter some lethal drug to facilitate her enduring in her last hours. She
had conceded to helping the daughter’s suicide, yet the judge demanded proceeding
to indict her for endeavoured murder. The jury saw her not guilty.
Disadvantages of using juries in the Crown Court
Disadvantage of using jurors in the Crown Court can be that they do not understand
the case complexity. This means that often jurors are uneducated and have no legal
knowledge within the legal field. When they retire and base the decision on facts.
They may not understand cases such as murder as the jury is not skilled and will not
understand the complexity of the case. They are dealing with and basing their
decision on with facts. They may not understand. Some differences within specific
crimes such as murder or manslaughter therefore this means that they might deliver
unfair decision and unequal verdict. As they do not understand the case and
therefore will not try to resolve the case properly this then leads to the problems with
a verdict the jury has come up with. This can also mean that they might on their
2|Page
1|Page
, In this report I will evaluate the effectiveness of lay personnel within the English
courts as well as the advantages and disadvantages of using juries in the Crown
Court as well as evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of using magistrates as
opposed to a district judge.
Advantages of using juries in the Crown Court
An advantage of using juries in the Crown Court is that juries are cross- sectioned.
This means that jurors reflect the views of the society and are representative of the
wider society. They are representative of the wider Society due to being selected
from the electoral register at random. This leads to a balanced decision making
when jury is retiring to form a verdict. It is also impartial as they weigh evidence
based on facts as well as they might also look at perspective of the society. If it
would benefit them or not. This is why they are impartial and have the public
confidence behind the name to make the decision for the public.
Another advantage is that, the jury is an open certainty. Asking 12 outsiders who
have no legitimate information and with no preparation to choose what might be
unpredictable. However, the jury is viewed as one of the basics of an equitable
society. The privilege to be attempted by one's friends is a bastion of freedom
against the state. This has been upheld by famous judges. For instance, Lord Devlin
said ‘juries are the light that shows that freedom lives.’ The custom of a hearing by
jury is old and individuals appear to believe in the unprejudiced nature and
reasonableness of a jury hearing.
As well as Jury equity, jurors are not lawful specialists. They will undoubtedly pursue
the point of reference of past cases or even Acts of Parliament. They don't need to
give explanations behind their decision, and it is workable for them to choose cases
on their concept of 'decency. This is now and then alluded to as jury value. A few
cases have demonstrated the significance of this. Specifically, Ponting's case (1984).
Example of this is in 2008 where the jury cleared a mother of endeavouring to kill her
little girl who had ended it all. Her daughter was age, 31, and had been sick for a
long time. She had infused herself with an overdose of morphine. The mother had
given her daughter some lethal drug to facilitate her enduring in her last hours. She
had conceded to helping the daughter’s suicide, yet the judge demanded proceeding
to indict her for endeavoured murder. The jury saw her not guilty.
Disadvantages of using juries in the Crown Court
Disadvantage of using jurors in the Crown Court can be that they do not understand
the case complexity. This means that often jurors are uneducated and have no legal
knowledge within the legal field. When they retire and base the decision on facts.
They may not understand cases such as murder as the jury is not skilled and will not
understand the complexity of the case. They are dealing with and basing their
decision on with facts. They may not understand. Some differences within specific
crimes such as murder or manslaughter therefore this means that they might deliver
unfair decision and unequal verdict. As they do not understand the case and
therefore will not try to resolve the case properly this then leads to the problems with
a verdict the jury has come up with. This can also mean that they might on their
2|Page
