a. Civil & Criminal role
b. Jury Selection (qualification, selection, Adv disadv)
Juries
Juries were originally used for providing information about local knowledge. According to
Bushell’s Case, jurors were the sole judges of fact and can give verdicts according to their
conscience. This is so juries may acquit a defendant even when the law demands a guilty
verdict and cannot be penalised for taking a view opposed to that of the judge. The House of
Lords confirmed that a judge can never tell a jury to convict as seen in R v Wang. The jury is
considered a fundamental part of the English Legal System, though only a minority of cases are
tried by jury. The main Act that governs jury trial is the Juries Act 1974.
—————————————————————————————————————
Function
The Function of the jury is to decide on matters of fact. The judge directs the jury as to what is
the relevant law, then the jury applies the law to the facts and thereby reaches a verdict. If it is a
criminal case and the jury has given a verdict of guilty, the judge will decide on the appropriate
sentence. In civil cases, the jury decides on how much damages should be awarded. In
Attorney General v Fraill and Seward, a juror committed contempt of court by chatting with an
acquitted defendant on Facebook but the verdict of a co-defendant was still being considered.
Communication over the internet between jurors and defendants is unacceptable. In reaching a
verdict, the jury is only entitled to take into account evidence that arose in court. In R v F and D,
two members of a jury were seen talking to a law student who had been watching the trial. The
conviction was quashed on appeal because of a risk that the jury could have been influenced by
evidence not heard in court. Jurors are warned before and during their trial not to research their
cases on the internet.
—————————————————————————————————————
*Juries used in Criminal cases
Criminal offences are classified into three groups: summary offences, indictable offences, either
way offences. Summary offences are the least serious cases, 95% of criminal cases are heard
in the Magistrates’ Courts, where juries have no role. Juries only decide cases heard in the
Crown Court. Even among cases heard in the Crown Court, most defendants will plead guilty,
which means there is no need for a jury. Where the judge directs the jury that the law demands
that they need to acquit the defendant, the jury makes no decision here. Juries decide only
around 1% of criminal cases.
, The Criminal Justice Act 2003 provides for trial by judge alone in the Crown Court where a
serious risk of jury tampering exists (s.44) or where the case involves complex or lengthy
financial and commercial arrangements (s.43). In the second scenario, trial by judge alone
would be possible. In R v Twomey, the authorities charged the defendants for attempted
robbery at a warehouse near Heathrow Airport in 2004. The defendants were originally put on
trial in 2008. However, the trial was stopped after six months when two jurors had been
approached. The court of appeal concluded that s.44 applied and the trial was to proceed
without a jury. In R v KS, the conviction was quashed as there was an appearance of bias since
the judge had made negative comments about KS in sentencing those other individuals in the
case. The case should not be allowed to continue with the judge sitting alone.
*Juries used in Civil cases
Juries in civil cases are now used only in very limited circumstances, but where they are used
they have a dual role. The present rules for when juries may be used in civil cases are set out in
the Senior Courts Act 1981 where juries can be used in three types of cases: Malicious
prosecution, false imprisonment or fraud. In all other cases, including defamation cases such as
cases of libel and slander, is at the discretion of the court. All these cases involve character or
reputation so a jury trial has been retained. Jury trial would be granted unless the court is of the
opinion that the trial requires any prolonged examination of documents or any investigation.
In Ward v James, the court of Appeal stated that in personal injury cases, trial should be by
judge alone unless there were special considerations.
—————————————————————————————————————
*Jury Selection
The Criminal Justice Act 2003, s.321 and schedule.33 amended the Juries Act 1974. This Act
now provides that potential jury members must be aged 18-75, be registered on the electoral
register, be a resident in the UK at least five years since the age of 13, not a mentally
disordered person and not disqualified from jury service. People can be disqualified or excused
from jury service due to age, residency, mental disability, criminal record, language and medical
reasons.
Before 2003, the police, prosecutors, barristers, solicitors, and prison officers were ineligible to
sit as jurors. With regards to the police, the greatest risk of bias exists where the police evidence
is disputed by the defence and where the police officer on the jury is acquainted with a police
offender on persecution. Otherwise, there could be a breach of right to fair trial under Article 6 of
the Human Rights Act 1998. People are not allowed to sit as a juror if their ordinary employment
would lead a fair-minded and informed observer to conclude that there was a possibility they
would be biased.
Summoning the jury
b. Jury Selection (qualification, selection, Adv disadv)
Juries
Juries were originally used for providing information about local knowledge. According to
Bushell’s Case, jurors were the sole judges of fact and can give verdicts according to their
conscience. This is so juries may acquit a defendant even when the law demands a guilty
verdict and cannot be penalised for taking a view opposed to that of the judge. The House of
Lords confirmed that a judge can never tell a jury to convict as seen in R v Wang. The jury is
considered a fundamental part of the English Legal System, though only a minority of cases are
tried by jury. The main Act that governs jury trial is the Juries Act 1974.
—————————————————————————————————————
Function
The Function of the jury is to decide on matters of fact. The judge directs the jury as to what is
the relevant law, then the jury applies the law to the facts and thereby reaches a verdict. If it is a
criminal case and the jury has given a verdict of guilty, the judge will decide on the appropriate
sentence. In civil cases, the jury decides on how much damages should be awarded. In
Attorney General v Fraill and Seward, a juror committed contempt of court by chatting with an
acquitted defendant on Facebook but the verdict of a co-defendant was still being considered.
Communication over the internet between jurors and defendants is unacceptable. In reaching a
verdict, the jury is only entitled to take into account evidence that arose in court. In R v F and D,
two members of a jury were seen talking to a law student who had been watching the trial. The
conviction was quashed on appeal because of a risk that the jury could have been influenced by
evidence not heard in court. Jurors are warned before and during their trial not to research their
cases on the internet.
—————————————————————————————————————
*Juries used in Criminal cases
Criminal offences are classified into three groups: summary offences, indictable offences, either
way offences. Summary offences are the least serious cases, 95% of criminal cases are heard
in the Magistrates’ Courts, where juries have no role. Juries only decide cases heard in the
Crown Court. Even among cases heard in the Crown Court, most defendants will plead guilty,
which means there is no need for a jury. Where the judge directs the jury that the law demands
that they need to acquit the defendant, the jury makes no decision here. Juries decide only
around 1% of criminal cases.
, The Criminal Justice Act 2003 provides for trial by judge alone in the Crown Court where a
serious risk of jury tampering exists (s.44) or where the case involves complex or lengthy
financial and commercial arrangements (s.43). In the second scenario, trial by judge alone
would be possible. In R v Twomey, the authorities charged the defendants for attempted
robbery at a warehouse near Heathrow Airport in 2004. The defendants were originally put on
trial in 2008. However, the trial was stopped after six months when two jurors had been
approached. The court of appeal concluded that s.44 applied and the trial was to proceed
without a jury. In R v KS, the conviction was quashed as there was an appearance of bias since
the judge had made negative comments about KS in sentencing those other individuals in the
case. The case should not be allowed to continue with the judge sitting alone.
*Juries used in Civil cases
Juries in civil cases are now used only in very limited circumstances, but where they are used
they have a dual role. The present rules for when juries may be used in civil cases are set out in
the Senior Courts Act 1981 where juries can be used in three types of cases: Malicious
prosecution, false imprisonment or fraud. In all other cases, including defamation cases such as
cases of libel and slander, is at the discretion of the court. All these cases involve character or
reputation so a jury trial has been retained. Jury trial would be granted unless the court is of the
opinion that the trial requires any prolonged examination of documents or any investigation.
In Ward v James, the court of Appeal stated that in personal injury cases, trial should be by
judge alone unless there were special considerations.
—————————————————————————————————————
*Jury Selection
The Criminal Justice Act 2003, s.321 and schedule.33 amended the Juries Act 1974. This Act
now provides that potential jury members must be aged 18-75, be registered on the electoral
register, be a resident in the UK at least five years since the age of 13, not a mentally
disordered person and not disqualified from jury service. People can be disqualified or excused
from jury service due to age, residency, mental disability, criminal record, language and medical
reasons.
Before 2003, the police, prosecutors, barristers, solicitors, and prison officers were ineligible to
sit as jurors. With regards to the police, the greatest risk of bias exists where the police evidence
is disputed by the defence and where the police officer on the jury is acquainted with a police
offender on persecution. Otherwise, there could be a breach of right to fair trial under Article 6 of
the Human Rights Act 1998. People are not allowed to sit as a juror if their ordinary employment
would lead a fair-minded and informed observer to conclude that there was a possibility they
would be biased.
Summoning the jury
