Juries:
There are two ways in which lay people can be used in criminal cases. The first way is as
jurors, who are ordinary people, without legal knowledge, who decide the outcome of
criminal cases. The eligibility for jury selection and qualification is contained in the Jury Act
1974 and The Criminal Justice Act 2003. To be a juror, the names are randomly selected
from the names on the electoral register, Are between the ages of 18 and 75, Have a
residency requirement of five years or more in the UK, Channel Islands or Isle of Mann and
Have no recent criminal convictions. There will usually be 15 randomly selected and 12 of
those will be chosen to sit on the case, and they will be asked for an unanimous decision or
a 10/12 majority by the judge for an acceptable verdict.
A jury’s role is to listen to the evidence and then decide the guilt or innocence of the
defendant. They are advised on the law by the judge and can take notes and ask questions,
via the judge, if so desired the decision they make cannot be questioned. Jury duty is
compulsory but there is a possibility of it being deferred for good reasons such as a holiday,
medical appointment, etc. Lawyers, Judges and other legal personnel are now able to carry
out jury service as a result of The Criminal Justice Act 2003.
However sometimes, juries will use their own beliefs when deliberating a case which is
called jury equity. For instance, when deciding whether or not the defendant is guilty, the jury
will consider morals instead of point of law. A case example of this is R v Owen. In 1991,
Stephen Owen was acquitted - despite the evidence against him - of the attempted murder
of Kevin Taylor, who was blind and did not have a driving license, who had killed his son,
Darren, by running over him in a lorry. Owen was obviously guilty, but was acquitted by the
jury based on morals. Jury equity can be seen as a strength to juries, as it brings their own
‘justice’ or fairness to a case.
There are many more strengths of juries, the first one being that the jury system is popular
with the public, who have confidence in the system as they are aware it is ordinary members
of the public playing such an important role in the criminal justice system. A second strength
is that there are 12 people, which means no one person is responsible. Jury deliberations
are also held in secret and members of the jury do not have to explain their decision.
However, some strengths of juries can soon turn into weaknesses. For example, juries do
not have to explain the reasoning for their verdict, which means they may use their own
beliefs to decide a verdict that is the total opposite to any evidence shown. For instance, in
the R V Kronlid case where the defendants were 3 women who broke into a British
Aerospace factory and caused damage costing over £1.5 million to a Hawk fighter plane in
order to prevent a terrorist attack. The jury had found them innocent based on their morals
and beliefs. Juries can also bring their own prejudice into their decisions, such as in the case
of Sander V UK where members of the jury made racist jokes about the defendant which
could have impacted the outcome of the trial. Furthermore, the jury are just regular people
who may not understand certain areas of the law which can mean they're not representative
to decide on a verdict if they don't completely understand the case.
magistrates
Magistrates, also known as Justices of the Peace, listen carefully to all evidence given in
court and follow structured decision-making processes and case law to reach fair decisions.
There are two ways in which lay people can be used in criminal cases. The first way is as
jurors, who are ordinary people, without legal knowledge, who decide the outcome of
criminal cases. The eligibility for jury selection and qualification is contained in the Jury Act
1974 and The Criminal Justice Act 2003. To be a juror, the names are randomly selected
from the names on the electoral register, Are between the ages of 18 and 75, Have a
residency requirement of five years or more in the UK, Channel Islands or Isle of Mann and
Have no recent criminal convictions. There will usually be 15 randomly selected and 12 of
those will be chosen to sit on the case, and they will be asked for an unanimous decision or
a 10/12 majority by the judge for an acceptable verdict.
A jury’s role is to listen to the evidence and then decide the guilt or innocence of the
defendant. They are advised on the law by the judge and can take notes and ask questions,
via the judge, if so desired the decision they make cannot be questioned. Jury duty is
compulsory but there is a possibility of it being deferred for good reasons such as a holiday,
medical appointment, etc. Lawyers, Judges and other legal personnel are now able to carry
out jury service as a result of The Criminal Justice Act 2003.
However sometimes, juries will use their own beliefs when deliberating a case which is
called jury equity. For instance, when deciding whether or not the defendant is guilty, the jury
will consider morals instead of point of law. A case example of this is R v Owen. In 1991,
Stephen Owen was acquitted - despite the evidence against him - of the attempted murder
of Kevin Taylor, who was blind and did not have a driving license, who had killed his son,
Darren, by running over him in a lorry. Owen was obviously guilty, but was acquitted by the
jury based on morals. Jury equity can be seen as a strength to juries, as it brings their own
‘justice’ or fairness to a case.
There are many more strengths of juries, the first one being that the jury system is popular
with the public, who have confidence in the system as they are aware it is ordinary members
of the public playing such an important role in the criminal justice system. A second strength
is that there are 12 people, which means no one person is responsible. Jury deliberations
are also held in secret and members of the jury do not have to explain their decision.
However, some strengths of juries can soon turn into weaknesses. For example, juries do
not have to explain the reasoning for their verdict, which means they may use their own
beliefs to decide a verdict that is the total opposite to any evidence shown. For instance, in
the R V Kronlid case where the defendants were 3 women who broke into a British
Aerospace factory and caused damage costing over £1.5 million to a Hawk fighter plane in
order to prevent a terrorist attack. The jury had found them innocent based on their morals
and beliefs. Juries can also bring their own prejudice into their decisions, such as in the case
of Sander V UK where members of the jury made racist jokes about the defendant which
could have impacted the outcome of the trial. Furthermore, the jury are just regular people
who may not understand certain areas of the law which can mean they're not representative
to decide on a verdict if they don't completely understand the case.
magistrates
Magistrates, also known as Justices of the Peace, listen carefully to all evidence given in
court and follow structured decision-making processes and case law to reach fair decisions.
