Jury evaluation
An advantage of using juries is that it increases public confidence in
the system. This is because it's a “trial by peers” so D is judged by
ordinary members of the public rather than one legal expert and this
is an advantage because a decision by 12 key people will be fairer
than by one judge alone since it’s likely they 12 people will cancel out
each others prejudices. This is therefore considered to be one of the
fundamentals of a democratic society. Furthermore, lord Devlin stated
that juries are “the lamp that shows that freedom lives”. Therefore,
having a jury means people will have confidence in the impartiality
and fairness in a jury trial.
Another advantage of using juries is jury equity. This is an advantage
because since jurors aren’t legal experts, they can refuse to operate a
law they feel is unjust even if the judge has told the jury that D has no
legal defence. This can by illustrated by the pontings case where a
civil servant leaked documents on a sinking of a ship to a member of
parliament so was charged under the official secrets act 1911 but
sought to rely on the sympathy of jury as he argued that the his
actions were in the public interest and despite the judges insistence
that he had no defence in law, the jury returned a not guilty verdict.
Therefore, jurors can decide the verdict according to what they think
Is morally right and wrong and don’t have to follow the law if they
think it’s unfair as they aren’t bound to follow precedent of past cases
or even acts of parliament.
Another advantage of using juries is that the jurors are likely to be
impartial. This is because jury members can’t know anyone involved
and so, they don’t have any personal bias against those involved
especially since only having 12 jurors will help cancel out any
individual biases. This is further demonstrated by r v Wilson and
sprayson where the wife of the prison officer overseeing D wasn’t
allowed to sit on the jury due to fear this may cause bias. Therefore,
this ensures that the decision was based purely on the evidence in
the court and that justice can be achieved in the way intended.
Another advantage is the secrecy of the jury room. This is an
advantage because their deliberations are kept secret so jurors are
more likely to give a honest opinion if they know the public won’t
know their vote/ opinion off the case and so, are safe from any
An advantage of using juries is that it increases public confidence in
the system. This is because it's a “trial by peers” so D is judged by
ordinary members of the public rather than one legal expert and this
is an advantage because a decision by 12 key people will be fairer
than by one judge alone since it’s likely they 12 people will cancel out
each others prejudices. This is therefore considered to be one of the
fundamentals of a democratic society. Furthermore, lord Devlin stated
that juries are “the lamp that shows that freedom lives”. Therefore,
having a jury means people will have confidence in the impartiality
and fairness in a jury trial.
Another advantage of using juries is jury equity. This is an advantage
because since jurors aren’t legal experts, they can refuse to operate a
law they feel is unjust even if the judge has told the jury that D has no
legal defence. This can by illustrated by the pontings case where a
civil servant leaked documents on a sinking of a ship to a member of
parliament so was charged under the official secrets act 1911 but
sought to rely on the sympathy of jury as he argued that the his
actions were in the public interest and despite the judges insistence
that he had no defence in law, the jury returned a not guilty verdict.
Therefore, jurors can decide the verdict according to what they think
Is morally right and wrong and don’t have to follow the law if they
think it’s unfair as they aren’t bound to follow precedent of past cases
or even acts of parliament.
Another advantage of using juries is that the jurors are likely to be
impartial. This is because jury members can’t know anyone involved
and so, they don’t have any personal bias against those involved
especially since only having 12 jurors will help cancel out any
individual biases. This is further demonstrated by r v Wilson and
sprayson where the wife of the prison officer overseeing D wasn’t
allowed to sit on the jury due to fear this may cause bias. Therefore,
this ensures that the decision was based purely on the evidence in
the court and that justice can be achieved in the way intended.
Another advantage is the secrecy of the jury room. This is an
advantage because their deliberations are kept secret so jurors are
more likely to give a honest opinion if they know the public won’t
know their vote/ opinion off the case and so, are safe from any
