D1 ‘The Effectiveness of Lay People in the English Legal
System’
Introduction
A Jury is an independent body of non-professionals who judge a case at hand from their own
consciences. A Jury consists of twelve randomly summoned people from the public that are
on the electoral register. Moreover, the Jury is a fundamental panel in court who ultimately
decide the outcome of a trial based on the evidence and facts presented in a courtroom.
This sworn body of people are expected to undertake their role wisely and make a
deduction, and to reach a unanimous verdict. A Jury is not an official legal profession;
nevertheless it’s a very significant and essential part of the English legal system and is
reliable for ensuring that justice is served. Jurors are appointed via the Central Summoning
Bureau and they must not have any disqualifications that prevent them from being a valid
member of the Jury. Furthermore, Jury service is mandatory unless the candidate has a
disqualification or a discretionary excusal, and the candidate must be aged between 18 and
70 in order to comply with the requirements. The purpose of this article is to demonstrate the
effectiveness and usefulness of Lay people in the English legal system, and to convey their
commitment to serving justice. Additionally, it will consider the advantages and limitations of
Lay people.
Advantages of Juries
An advantage of Juries is that to be a member of the Jury, you aren’t required to have any
legal skills or knowledge of the law; therefore a substantial amount of the population can
participate in Jury service and this allows for a broader spectrum of diverse views.
Consequently, this is more likely to eliminate the chance of Individual prejudice and
guarantees a balanced and just trial. Furthermore, a Juror can be sympathetic during a trial
because they have no legal training or experience and there is no pressure on them to find a
defendant guilty. Character and honesty can be judged by ordinary people, hence legal skills
are not required. A Jury is an independent body consisting of non-professionals, and this is
an advantage because it reduces case hardening and as a result there is more public
confidence is this system. There is evidence of a Jury expressing compassion via the R vs
Owen case in 1992, where the Jury found the defendant not guilty of attempted murder due
to the unfortunate circumstances of the case. Moreover, the R vs Blythe case in 1998
reveals a sympathetic nature of the Jury because they found the defendant not guilty of
supplying his dying wife with cannabis. Juries are effective because they filter out bias in a
courtroom as they are all randomly selected people with no legal training who reach a
shared decision. These factors support that having no legal skills or knowledge of the law is
an advantage of Juries.
A further advantage of Juries is that there is no influence on how they reach their verdict.
Juries determine their verdict entirely from the facts presented in court, and this reduces
‘Jury nobbling’. This is an advantage because they are less likely to be threatened or
intimidated due to this structure of the system and it maintains the fairness of a case. There
is evidence of Jury nobbling in past cases, however the Criminal Justice and Public Order
Act 1994 brought in a specific offence of intimidating or threatening to cause harm to a Juror,
punishable by a prison sentence. This act essentially provides security for Jurors and
System’
Introduction
A Jury is an independent body of non-professionals who judge a case at hand from their own
consciences. A Jury consists of twelve randomly summoned people from the public that are
on the electoral register. Moreover, the Jury is a fundamental panel in court who ultimately
decide the outcome of a trial based on the evidence and facts presented in a courtroom.
This sworn body of people are expected to undertake their role wisely and make a
deduction, and to reach a unanimous verdict. A Jury is not an official legal profession;
nevertheless it’s a very significant and essential part of the English legal system and is
reliable for ensuring that justice is served. Jurors are appointed via the Central Summoning
Bureau and they must not have any disqualifications that prevent them from being a valid
member of the Jury. Furthermore, Jury service is mandatory unless the candidate has a
disqualification or a discretionary excusal, and the candidate must be aged between 18 and
70 in order to comply with the requirements. The purpose of this article is to demonstrate the
effectiveness and usefulness of Lay people in the English legal system, and to convey their
commitment to serving justice. Additionally, it will consider the advantages and limitations of
Lay people.
Advantages of Juries
An advantage of Juries is that to be a member of the Jury, you aren’t required to have any
legal skills or knowledge of the law; therefore a substantial amount of the population can
participate in Jury service and this allows for a broader spectrum of diverse views.
Consequently, this is more likely to eliminate the chance of Individual prejudice and
guarantees a balanced and just trial. Furthermore, a Juror can be sympathetic during a trial
because they have no legal training or experience and there is no pressure on them to find a
defendant guilty. Character and honesty can be judged by ordinary people, hence legal skills
are not required. A Jury is an independent body consisting of non-professionals, and this is
an advantage because it reduces case hardening and as a result there is more public
confidence is this system. There is evidence of a Jury expressing compassion via the R vs
Owen case in 1992, where the Jury found the defendant not guilty of attempted murder due
to the unfortunate circumstances of the case. Moreover, the R vs Blythe case in 1998
reveals a sympathetic nature of the Jury because they found the defendant not guilty of
supplying his dying wife with cannabis. Juries are effective because they filter out bias in a
courtroom as they are all randomly selected people with no legal training who reach a
shared decision. These factors support that having no legal skills or knowledge of the law is
an advantage of Juries.
A further advantage of Juries is that there is no influence on how they reach their verdict.
Juries determine their verdict entirely from the facts presented in court, and this reduces
‘Jury nobbling’. This is an advantage because they are less likely to be threatened or
intimidated due to this structure of the system and it maintains the fairness of a case. There
is evidence of Jury nobbling in past cases, however the Criminal Justice and Public Order
Act 1994 brought in a specific offence of intimidating or threatening to cause harm to a Juror,
punishable by a prison sentence. This act essentially provides security for Jurors and
