Unit 3 AC2.5- Discuss the use of lay people in criminal cases
● 30 minutes (6 marks)
● Discuss and evaluate fully the strengths and weaknesses of juries and magistrates
Jury
Describe briefly:
● The jury consists of 12 people randomly selected from the electoral register
● To serve as a juror, you must be at least 18 but under 76 years old
● People not eligible to serve as jurors are those who may be mentally unfit, are currently on bail or have
previously been sentenced
● Jurors are also not supposed to have any connection to anyone involved in the case they are hearing, if
they are, they must tell someone in order to avoid an unfair trial for the defendant
● Juries are impartial and should be able to achieve a verdict which is beyond reasonable doubt
Strengths Weaknesses
Explain at least three: Explain at least three:
● Since the jury are randomly selected ● Misuse of internet by jurors can affect a trial
members, it is considered that justice can be and criticises the use of a jury
fairly given as they reflect the whole of the ○ Joanne Fraill was sentenced to 8
public months after contacting the
● Ensures impartiality and a fair trial as trial by defendants of whom she was juror for
peers is carried out- this ideally removes the on Facebook and chatted with them
possibility of bias in a verdict about the trial, this resulted in the
● Use of a jury in criminal cases mirrors the collapse of the £6 million drug trial.
idea of democracy which is very important to ● Racial bias is where a jurors decision may be
society- where the major vote wins influenced by internalised racial prejudice- for
● Jury equity- although jurors are encouraged example they may be more likely to vote
to decide based on evidence alone, they are against someone who they have
not bound by the law and therefore can apply assumptions about or be more sympathetic
their own morals and beliefs to a case to someone of their own race eg: a juror
regardless of what the law or sentencing belonging to minority groups may be more
guidelines state willing to convict someone for hate crime
○ R V Owen- Mr Owen was charged with ● Sigall and Ostrove 1975 found that jurors can
attempted murder and GBH with be affected by the “halo effect” where they
intent after shooting a lorry driver who believe that criminals who look attractive can
killed his son and showed no do no harm- this is known as attractiveness
remorse- although evidence proved he bias eg: Jeremy Meeks attractive mugshot
was guilty of his actions, the jury did ● Jury tampering is when intentional action is
not convict Mr Owen as they taken by an individual in order to manipulate
sympathised with his situation. the jury eg bribery and intimidation- this
○ R V Ponting- Clive Ponting had shared removes the defendant's right to a fair trial
confidential documents about the ○ R V Mirza- a Pakistani defendant who
sinking of a ship to a Labour settled in the UK needed an interpreter
backbencher, although he was guilty in court, after the verdict a juror
he was acquitted by the jury as they claimed the use of the interpreter was
believed it was in the best interest of a ploy so the defendant could gain
the public to be aware of this sympathy from the jury so they would
information. find him not guilty- she was objected
● 30 minutes (6 marks)
● Discuss and evaluate fully the strengths and weaknesses of juries and magistrates
Jury
Describe briefly:
● The jury consists of 12 people randomly selected from the electoral register
● To serve as a juror, you must be at least 18 but under 76 years old
● People not eligible to serve as jurors are those who may be mentally unfit, are currently on bail or have
previously been sentenced
● Jurors are also not supposed to have any connection to anyone involved in the case they are hearing, if
they are, they must tell someone in order to avoid an unfair trial for the defendant
● Juries are impartial and should be able to achieve a verdict which is beyond reasonable doubt
Strengths Weaknesses
Explain at least three: Explain at least three:
● Since the jury are randomly selected ● Misuse of internet by jurors can affect a trial
members, it is considered that justice can be and criticises the use of a jury
fairly given as they reflect the whole of the ○ Joanne Fraill was sentenced to 8
public months after contacting the
● Ensures impartiality and a fair trial as trial by defendants of whom she was juror for
peers is carried out- this ideally removes the on Facebook and chatted with them
possibility of bias in a verdict about the trial, this resulted in the
● Use of a jury in criminal cases mirrors the collapse of the £6 million drug trial.
idea of democracy which is very important to ● Racial bias is where a jurors decision may be
society- where the major vote wins influenced by internalised racial prejudice- for
● Jury equity- although jurors are encouraged example they may be more likely to vote
to decide based on evidence alone, they are against someone who they have
not bound by the law and therefore can apply assumptions about or be more sympathetic
their own morals and beliefs to a case to someone of their own race eg: a juror
regardless of what the law or sentencing belonging to minority groups may be more
guidelines state willing to convict someone for hate crime
○ R V Owen- Mr Owen was charged with ● Sigall and Ostrove 1975 found that jurors can
attempted murder and GBH with be affected by the “halo effect” where they
intent after shooting a lorry driver who believe that criminals who look attractive can
killed his son and showed no do no harm- this is known as attractiveness
remorse- although evidence proved he bias eg: Jeremy Meeks attractive mugshot
was guilty of his actions, the jury did ● Jury tampering is when intentional action is
not convict Mr Owen as they taken by an individual in order to manipulate
sympathised with his situation. the jury eg bribery and intimidation- this
○ R V Ponting- Clive Ponting had shared removes the defendant's right to a fair trial
confidential documents about the ○ R V Mirza- a Pakistani defendant who
sinking of a ship to a Labour settled in the UK needed an interpreter
backbencher, although he was guilty in court, after the verdict a juror
he was acquitted by the jury as they claimed the use of the interpreter was
believed it was in the best interest of a ploy so the defendant could gain
the public to be aware of this sympathy from the jury so they would
information. find him not guilty- she was objected
