AC2.5 - Discuss the use of lay people in trials
Lay people are members of the public who do not have any professional or specialised
knowledge of the law or legal procedure. In the UK court system, lay people make up
the 12 people on a jury, as well as magistrates.
Juries are 12 lay people who sit in Crown Court (as well as some inquests into sudden
death) and hear evidence given by barristers and eventually make a judgement on
whether they think the defendant is guilty or not guilty. Throughout this process they
may receive advice from the judge in the form of legal advice or a summary of the case
evidence and fact just before they deliberate the verdict. Anyone between the ages of
18 and 75 can be called for jury service, however, it is illegal for anyone on bail or
probation to do jury service. Juries are used in trials of indictable offences as well as
any triable either way offences that go to Crown Court.
A strength of the jury system is that they have jury equity, meaning that they are able
to reach a verdict together that reflects the outcome they believe to be morally right,
which means that each offender can have their specific circumstances taken into
account during their judgement. An example of why this is beneficial is the case of Kay
Gilderhale who plead guilty to the assisted suicide of her daughter, but was charged
with murder instead. During the trial, however, the jury acquitted her, believing that she
had done the right thing for her situation. This case is a good example of how Juries are
beneficial as a system when it comes to fair trial outcomes. Juries are also beneficial in
that they make the outcome of a case likely to be seen as justice to the rest of the
country too as they are lay people, and so represent the views and beliefs of the wider
area.
However, a weakness of juries is that they are hugely at risk for jury tampering,
especially in higher profile or organised crime cases. Jury tampering is the use of
bribery or intimidation in order to get jurors to vote a certain way, most of the time to get
the defendant acquitted. A case that had examples of jury intimidation was in the R v
Twomey & others case in which 6 men had been arrested and charged with
possession of a firearm, robbery, and conspiracy to rob. When these men were taken to
trial the first time, Twomey suffered a heart attack and couldn’t attend court. In the
second trial, the jury could not reach a verdict. And, in the third, and final, jury-based
trial, the prosecution accused the jury had been tampered with. The fourth trial was
without a jury, and heard only by a judge. This shows how juries have a significant
downfall in that they may be victims of jury tampering. Another weakness of juries is that
they are subject to influence from the media, with studies showing that, despite
explicit instructions not to, 26% of jurors look up their cases online. Furthermore, in our
modern age of technology it becomes difficult to avoid seeing information about a case,
Lay people are members of the public who do not have any professional or specialised
knowledge of the law or legal procedure. In the UK court system, lay people make up
the 12 people on a jury, as well as magistrates.
Juries are 12 lay people who sit in Crown Court (as well as some inquests into sudden
death) and hear evidence given by barristers and eventually make a judgement on
whether they think the defendant is guilty or not guilty. Throughout this process they
may receive advice from the judge in the form of legal advice or a summary of the case
evidence and fact just before they deliberate the verdict. Anyone between the ages of
18 and 75 can be called for jury service, however, it is illegal for anyone on bail or
probation to do jury service. Juries are used in trials of indictable offences as well as
any triable either way offences that go to Crown Court.
A strength of the jury system is that they have jury equity, meaning that they are able
to reach a verdict together that reflects the outcome they believe to be morally right,
which means that each offender can have their specific circumstances taken into
account during their judgement. An example of why this is beneficial is the case of Kay
Gilderhale who plead guilty to the assisted suicide of her daughter, but was charged
with murder instead. During the trial, however, the jury acquitted her, believing that she
had done the right thing for her situation. This case is a good example of how Juries are
beneficial as a system when it comes to fair trial outcomes. Juries are also beneficial in
that they make the outcome of a case likely to be seen as justice to the rest of the
country too as they are lay people, and so represent the views and beliefs of the wider
area.
However, a weakness of juries is that they are hugely at risk for jury tampering,
especially in higher profile or organised crime cases. Jury tampering is the use of
bribery or intimidation in order to get jurors to vote a certain way, most of the time to get
the defendant acquitted. A case that had examples of jury intimidation was in the R v
Twomey & others case in which 6 men had been arrested and charged with
possession of a firearm, robbery, and conspiracy to rob. When these men were taken to
trial the first time, Twomey suffered a heart attack and couldn’t attend court. In the
second trial, the jury could not reach a verdict. And, in the third, and final, jury-based
trial, the prosecution accused the jury had been tampered with. The fourth trial was
without a jury, and heard only by a judge. This shows how juries have a significant
downfall in that they may be victims of jury tampering. Another weakness of juries is that
they are subject to influence from the media, with studies showing that, despite
explicit instructions not to, 26% of jurors look up their cases online. Furthermore, in our
modern age of technology it becomes difficult to avoid seeing information about a case,
