20. THE JURY
LEARNING OUTCOMES
After studying this topic and the relevant readings, you should be able to:
• explain the function of the jury in criminal trials
• discuss the issue of racial bias and fairness in jury decision-making
• discuss the law on juror misconduct
• discuss arguments about the possible decline in jury trials.
THE FUNCTION OF THE JURY IN CRIMINAL TRIALS
SLAPPER & KELLY, THE ENGLISH LEGAL SYSTEM
Ideally, the function of the jury is to decide on matters of fact. The matters of
law are to the province of the judge.
However, most of the time, the jury’s decision is based on a mixture of fact and
law. Jurors determine a person's guilt based on their understanding of the law as
explained to them by the judge.
The oath:
”Will faithfully try the defendant and give a true verdict according to the
evidence.”
According to Judge Anura Cooray, Jurors must recognize that they have a
responsibility to fulfil their duties in accordance with the oath taken.
Judges can direct juries to acquit the accused where there is insufficient
evidence to convict them. This is the main safeguard against the jury finding
defendants guilty in spite of either the absence, insufficiency or of the evidence.
Judges should not put pressure on juries to reach guilty verdicts. Any case of this
kind may be overturned of any conviction obtained.
R v McKenna
Judge told jurors that if they did not come up with a verdict in the following ten
minutes they will be locked up. The conviction was quashed on appeal due to
the hurried guilty verdict.
, The cardinal principle of our criminal law is that I consideration of their verdict,
the jury shall deliberate in complete freedom without influence of promise,
unintimidated by threat. They stand between the crown and the subject as one
of the main defences of personal liberty.
Judges have the right/duty to advice the jury to the proper understanding of or
advice regarding the law concerned with.
Historically: Principle that no further evidence should be given after the judges
summing up has been concluded and the jury has retired.
R v Owen
Trial judge allowed a doctor already given evidence to be recalled to give more
evidence in answer to a question raised by a jury after their retirement. The
subsequent conviction was quashed.
Lord Goddard LCJ: Once the summing up is concluded, no further evidence
ought to be given. Jury can be instructed in reply to any question but no further
evidence should be allowed.
R v Sanderson
CA, including Lord Goddard CJ, held that it was permissible for the evidence of a
witness for the defence to be taken after the summing up has been completed
but before the jury had retired.
R v Gearing
The very strict rule that no evidence whatever must be introduced after the jury
has retired was reiterated by Lord Parker CJ.
A change in approach occurred after the provisio of s2(1) of the Criminal Appeal
Act 1968.
R v Davis: The absolute nature of the rule was questioned
R v Karakaya: Approach was approved
R v Hallam: COA held that a verdict was unsafe because judge has refused to
permit the jury to see a photograph which could potentially have assisted the
appellants defence but only came into light after summing up.
There is an absolute rule that there can be no appeal against a jury’s decision to
acquit a person of the charges laid against them.
However, AG referring the case to COA can seek its advice on points of law. This
was provided for under s36 of the CJA 1972 even though not commonly resorted
to.
LEARNING OUTCOMES
After studying this topic and the relevant readings, you should be able to:
• explain the function of the jury in criminal trials
• discuss the issue of racial bias and fairness in jury decision-making
• discuss the law on juror misconduct
• discuss arguments about the possible decline in jury trials.
THE FUNCTION OF THE JURY IN CRIMINAL TRIALS
SLAPPER & KELLY, THE ENGLISH LEGAL SYSTEM
Ideally, the function of the jury is to decide on matters of fact. The matters of
law are to the province of the judge.
However, most of the time, the jury’s decision is based on a mixture of fact and
law. Jurors determine a person's guilt based on their understanding of the law as
explained to them by the judge.
The oath:
”Will faithfully try the defendant and give a true verdict according to the
evidence.”
According to Judge Anura Cooray, Jurors must recognize that they have a
responsibility to fulfil their duties in accordance with the oath taken.
Judges can direct juries to acquit the accused where there is insufficient
evidence to convict them. This is the main safeguard against the jury finding
defendants guilty in spite of either the absence, insufficiency or of the evidence.
Judges should not put pressure on juries to reach guilty verdicts. Any case of this
kind may be overturned of any conviction obtained.
R v McKenna
Judge told jurors that if they did not come up with a verdict in the following ten
minutes they will be locked up. The conviction was quashed on appeal due to
the hurried guilty verdict.
, The cardinal principle of our criminal law is that I consideration of their verdict,
the jury shall deliberate in complete freedom without influence of promise,
unintimidated by threat. They stand between the crown and the subject as one
of the main defences of personal liberty.
Judges have the right/duty to advice the jury to the proper understanding of or
advice regarding the law concerned with.
Historically: Principle that no further evidence should be given after the judges
summing up has been concluded and the jury has retired.
R v Owen
Trial judge allowed a doctor already given evidence to be recalled to give more
evidence in answer to a question raised by a jury after their retirement. The
subsequent conviction was quashed.
Lord Goddard LCJ: Once the summing up is concluded, no further evidence
ought to be given. Jury can be instructed in reply to any question but no further
evidence should be allowed.
R v Sanderson
CA, including Lord Goddard CJ, held that it was permissible for the evidence of a
witness for the defence to be taken after the summing up has been completed
but before the jury had retired.
R v Gearing
The very strict rule that no evidence whatever must be introduced after the jury
has retired was reiterated by Lord Parker CJ.
A change in approach occurred after the provisio of s2(1) of the Criminal Appeal
Act 1968.
R v Davis: The absolute nature of the rule was questioned
R v Karakaya: Approach was approved
R v Hallam: COA held that a verdict was unsafe because judge has refused to
permit the jury to see a photograph which could potentially have assisted the
appellants defence but only came into light after summing up.
There is an absolute rule that there can be no appeal against a jury’s decision to
acquit a person of the charges laid against them.
However, AG referring the case to COA can seek its advice on points of law. This
was provided for under s36 of the CJA 1972 even though not commonly resorted
to.
