Juries
Trial is presided over by a judge and the functions split between judge and jury. The judge
rules on points of law and the jury decides the facts. It is also the judges job to explain the
law to the jury so that they can reach a verdict on D’s guilt. The judge will then sentence and
where they are found to be guilty.
The jury are lay people, members of the public selected from the electoral register at
random. They must be 18-75, registered to vote and be a resident in the UK for at least five
years since age 13. This is where the name ‘’trial by peers’’ originates from, as jurors are
random members of society.
Advantages of Jury Trial:
- Public Confidence- considered a fundamental part of a democractic society. The right
to trial by peers indicates liberty against the state.
- Jury equity - since jurors are not legal professionals they aren’t bound to acts of
parliament or old law. They also don’t have to give decisions for their verdicts. This
allows them to decide cases on the merits of fairness, even where law is bad.
Ponting's case 1984 -- Good law, flexible and applied on an individual basis.
- Impartiality- jurys represent a cross section of society and so different prejudices
should balance eachother out. No one person is responsible for decisions.
Disadvantages of Jury Trial:
- Perverse decisions- jury being able to ignore law isn’t fair when it's made by our
elected representatives. Juries have refused to connect in clear cut cases- not good
as not in public interest: R v Kronlid and others- caused 1.5 million damage to the
plane because it was going to do damage in the middle east. Jury acquitted them.
- Jurors and the internet: extraneous variables can play a part in making decisions. Eg.
the internet R v Karakaya - rape and jury used D’s social media in deliberation. Not
fair as outside rules of evidence.
- Media influence- R v Taylor and Taylor - sisters charged with murder and tabloid
releaseed still image which misrepresnted situation. D’s convicted.
- Lack of understanding- Thomas report suggests that just 31% of jurors fully
understood instructions fully. With no legal training/skills they should be expected to
apply law when such high stakes.This has led to hgh acquittal rates, & juries less
likely to conceit- is this in the public interest.
Trial is presided over by a judge and the functions split between judge and jury. The judge
rules on points of law and the jury decides the facts. It is also the judges job to explain the
law to the jury so that they can reach a verdict on D’s guilt. The judge will then sentence and
where they are found to be guilty.
The jury are lay people, members of the public selected from the electoral register at
random. They must be 18-75, registered to vote and be a resident in the UK for at least five
years since age 13. This is where the name ‘’trial by peers’’ originates from, as jurors are
random members of society.
Advantages of Jury Trial:
- Public Confidence- considered a fundamental part of a democractic society. The right
to trial by peers indicates liberty against the state.
- Jury equity - since jurors are not legal professionals they aren’t bound to acts of
parliament or old law. They also don’t have to give decisions for their verdicts. This
allows them to decide cases on the merits of fairness, even where law is bad.
Ponting's case 1984 -- Good law, flexible and applied on an individual basis.
- Impartiality- jurys represent a cross section of society and so different prejudices
should balance eachother out. No one person is responsible for decisions.
Disadvantages of Jury Trial:
- Perverse decisions- jury being able to ignore law isn’t fair when it's made by our
elected representatives. Juries have refused to connect in clear cut cases- not good
as not in public interest: R v Kronlid and others- caused 1.5 million damage to the
plane because it was going to do damage in the middle east. Jury acquitted them.
- Jurors and the internet: extraneous variables can play a part in making decisions. Eg.
the internet R v Karakaya - rape and jury used D’s social media in deliberation. Not
fair as outside rules of evidence.
- Media influence- R v Taylor and Taylor - sisters charged with murder and tabloid
releaseed still image which misrepresnted situation. D’s convicted.
- Lack of understanding- Thomas report suggests that just 31% of jurors fully
understood instructions fully. With no legal training/skills they should be expected to
apply law when such high stakes.This has led to hgh acquittal rates, & juries less
likely to conceit- is this in the public interest.
