2.5 – Discuss the use of laypeople in criminal cases
Laypeople are untrained workers in the legal system who lack specialised knowledge of the law and
the justice system. They have the capacity to serve as either a jury or a magistrate.
Juries
The jury's role is to render a verdict in a case that the crown court has put out. The jury retires to the
jury room after the prosecution and defence both present evidence, and they must persuade them
beyond a reasonable doubt in order for them to reach a verdict. It is illegal for jurors to discuss their
decision-making process and the verdict they rendered under the Criminal Justice and Courts Act
2015, unless they are accusing another juror of misconduct
Strengths:
Jury equity is one of the jury system's strengths. Jurors are free to decide cases based on what is
right and moral, as opposed to following the law or previous rulings, which is referred to as jury
equity. The trial of Clive Ponting serves as a practical illustration of jury equity. When the Falklands
War broke out, Clive was a senior civil servant. Three years later, he gave an MP access to classified
government information about the sinking of the Argentinian cruiser. He was accused of violating
the Official Secrets Act of 1911, and the judge strongly advised the jury to find him guilty because he
had already admitted to the offence. He claimed to have acted in the public good, but the jury found
him not guilty. Likewise, in the instance of Kay Gilderdale who helped her seriously ill daughter Lynn
commit suicide. The CPS charged her with attempted murder, but the jury acquitted her.
Justice is seen to be done, which is another advantage of the jury system. The jury's job is to let the
general people decide how trials will turn out. The jury is given the opportunity to hear the judge's
legal observations as well as the defence and prosecution's arguments, which enables them to
comprehend the case and render an objective verdict. Fairer trials and objectivity are the jury
system's third advantage. Due to the fact that a jury is made up of the defendant's peers and is seen
as more equitable for the defendant than a hierarchy of judges or magistrates.
Secrecy is another advantage of the jury system. Away from the public's influence, the jury renders
its decision in the jury room. Jurors are convinced that their discussions won't be made public, which
prevents the influence of the general public on their choices. The public's trust in democracy and the
jury system is its last strength. Our society's democracy can be upheld thanks to the jury's function,
and trials are made more equitable because defendants are assessed by their fellow citizens rather
than just the state. Senior judge Lord Devlin remarked that the jury is "the lamp that demonstrates
that freedom lives," which lends weight to this idea.
Weaknesses:
Racial bias is one of the jury system's weaknesses. There is a good chance that justice will be
misapplied if juries are racially biassed. This was established in the 2005 case of Sander v United
Kingdom, in which two jury members made racial remarks during the trial of Kuldip Sander, an Asian
man. The court permitted the trial to proceed, but the European Court of Human Rights heard
Sanders appeal and determined that he had not received a fair trial. Sander had already served three
years in jail at this point. MP David Lammy conducted an independent assessment of this claim of
racial bias in the jury system and found no evidence to support it.
Influence from the media is the jury system's second weakness. The jury members might be swayed
by the case's media coverage if they are exposed to it. This was demonstrated in the case of R v.
Laypeople are untrained workers in the legal system who lack specialised knowledge of the law and
the justice system. They have the capacity to serve as either a jury or a magistrate.
Juries
The jury's role is to render a verdict in a case that the crown court has put out. The jury retires to the
jury room after the prosecution and defence both present evidence, and they must persuade them
beyond a reasonable doubt in order for them to reach a verdict. It is illegal for jurors to discuss their
decision-making process and the verdict they rendered under the Criminal Justice and Courts Act
2015, unless they are accusing another juror of misconduct
Strengths:
Jury equity is one of the jury system's strengths. Jurors are free to decide cases based on what is
right and moral, as opposed to following the law or previous rulings, which is referred to as jury
equity. The trial of Clive Ponting serves as a practical illustration of jury equity. When the Falklands
War broke out, Clive was a senior civil servant. Three years later, he gave an MP access to classified
government information about the sinking of the Argentinian cruiser. He was accused of violating
the Official Secrets Act of 1911, and the judge strongly advised the jury to find him guilty because he
had already admitted to the offence. He claimed to have acted in the public good, but the jury found
him not guilty. Likewise, in the instance of Kay Gilderdale who helped her seriously ill daughter Lynn
commit suicide. The CPS charged her with attempted murder, but the jury acquitted her.
Justice is seen to be done, which is another advantage of the jury system. The jury's job is to let the
general people decide how trials will turn out. The jury is given the opportunity to hear the judge's
legal observations as well as the defence and prosecution's arguments, which enables them to
comprehend the case and render an objective verdict. Fairer trials and objectivity are the jury
system's third advantage. Due to the fact that a jury is made up of the defendant's peers and is seen
as more equitable for the defendant than a hierarchy of judges or magistrates.
Secrecy is another advantage of the jury system. Away from the public's influence, the jury renders
its decision in the jury room. Jurors are convinced that their discussions won't be made public, which
prevents the influence of the general public on their choices. The public's trust in democracy and the
jury system is its last strength. Our society's democracy can be upheld thanks to the jury's function,
and trials are made more equitable because defendants are assessed by their fellow citizens rather
than just the state. Senior judge Lord Devlin remarked that the jury is "the lamp that demonstrates
that freedom lives," which lends weight to this idea.
Weaknesses:
Racial bias is one of the jury system's weaknesses. There is a good chance that justice will be
misapplied if juries are racially biassed. This was established in the 2005 case of Sander v United
Kingdom, in which two jury members made racial remarks during the trial of Kuldip Sander, an Asian
man. The court permitted the trial to proceed, but the European Court of Human Rights heard
Sanders appeal and determined that he had not received a fair trial. Sander had already served three
years in jail at this point. MP David Lammy conducted an independent assessment of this claim of
racial bias in the jury system and found no evidence to support it.
Influence from the media is the jury system's second weakness. The jury members might be swayed
by the case's media coverage if they are exposed to it. This was demonstrated in the case of R v.
