Criminology Unit 3 AC 2.5 Discuss the use of lay people in criminal cases (6 marks)
Lay people are ordinary members of the public who are not a part of the legal team involved
in criminal cases as they have no professional knowledge of the law. They serve as
members of juries, and as magistrates in the English law.
Juries
Juries are presented during a criminal court case. And are in charge of determining the
verdict when deliberating the case in court. For jurors to be eligible they must be registered
on the electoral register, they must be between the age of 18-75, they must not have
previous or pending convictions, they must be a citizen of the UK, the Irish Republic or a
British Commonwealth country, and they must have resided in the UK, the Channel Islands
or the Isle of Man for five years. This can be found under the Jury Act 1974, and The
Criminal Justice Act 2003. A jury’s role is to listen to the evidence and then decide the guilt
or innocence of the defendant. They are advised on the law by the judge and can take notes
and ask questions via the judge, if so desired. Their verdict given cannot be questioned. A
jury is randomly selected forming a bench of 12 members. When the jury is listening to the
evidence of the case, and deliberating, they have to be ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’ certain
that the defendant is either guilty or not guilty as the defendant’s liberty is at stake. Jurors
can also be found in contempt of court under The Criminal Justice Act 2015 and S8 of the
Contempt of Court Act 1981. This means that when a juror’s act leads to deliberately failing
to obey or respect the authority or the court of law, they can be guilty of misconduct and
contempt of court. Due to the seriousness of court procedures, jury duty is compulsory
unless under extreme personal circumstances.
Strengths
Jurors have the right to decide a verdict based on their conscience if they feel it is in the
interests of justice, even if it goes against the law. This means that defendants are more
likely to get a fairer trial than if a judge decided their verdict as they are being judged by
people who are equal to them. Judges have high legal expertise and they have become
hardened to cases, meaning that they are more likely to convict defendants. So, juries allow
for a fairer trial as they are allowed to do what they think is morally right and not just what
complies with the law. E.g., In the Kay Gilderdale case, the jury acquitted Gilderdale of the
murder of her 31-year-old daughter. She pleaded guilty to assisting her daughter's suicide
but the jury didn't convict her because they empathised with her and understood the
situation, she was in. Her daughter was seriously ill and had been for 17 years, all Gilderdale
wanted to do was help end her daughter's suffering and fulfil her wish. Demonstrating how
justice is upheld in different ways.
Juries allow the right to a fair trial, as the jury system is popular with members of the public.
The right to be tried by our peers is a key part of court history and is viewed as a democratic
right. With there being 12 people on every jury, it means no one individual is responsible for
the verdict and allows for a more thorough examination of evidence with numerous opinions
considered. Therefore, if the defendant is found guilty by 12 people who represent the UK
population, with all opinions and evidence considered, it is likely that the verdict is safe and
of public opinion. Having 12 jury members also reduces prejudice and means no one person
can be held accountable in the case of a wrong verdict. E.g., the case of R v Wang W was
charged with having an article with a blade or point in a public place, he was found with a
Shaolin knife in his bag on a train station platform. His defence was he carried the knife to
practice his Buddhist religion but the evidence of him owning the blade 0therefore the belief
that he had committed the offence was beyond doubt. The judge directed the jury to find
Wang guilty and the defendant appealed as a result. Wang argued that the jury should be
Lay people are ordinary members of the public who are not a part of the legal team involved
in criminal cases as they have no professional knowledge of the law. They serve as
members of juries, and as magistrates in the English law.
Juries
Juries are presented during a criminal court case. And are in charge of determining the
verdict when deliberating the case in court. For jurors to be eligible they must be registered
on the electoral register, they must be between the age of 18-75, they must not have
previous or pending convictions, they must be a citizen of the UK, the Irish Republic or a
British Commonwealth country, and they must have resided in the UK, the Channel Islands
or the Isle of Man for five years. This can be found under the Jury Act 1974, and The
Criminal Justice Act 2003. A jury’s role is to listen to the evidence and then decide the guilt
or innocence of the defendant. They are advised on the law by the judge and can take notes
and ask questions via the judge, if so desired. Their verdict given cannot be questioned. A
jury is randomly selected forming a bench of 12 members. When the jury is listening to the
evidence of the case, and deliberating, they have to be ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’ certain
that the defendant is either guilty or not guilty as the defendant’s liberty is at stake. Jurors
can also be found in contempt of court under The Criminal Justice Act 2015 and S8 of the
Contempt of Court Act 1981. This means that when a juror’s act leads to deliberately failing
to obey or respect the authority or the court of law, they can be guilty of misconduct and
contempt of court. Due to the seriousness of court procedures, jury duty is compulsory
unless under extreme personal circumstances.
Strengths
Jurors have the right to decide a verdict based on their conscience if they feel it is in the
interests of justice, even if it goes against the law. This means that defendants are more
likely to get a fairer trial than if a judge decided their verdict as they are being judged by
people who are equal to them. Judges have high legal expertise and they have become
hardened to cases, meaning that they are more likely to convict defendants. So, juries allow
for a fairer trial as they are allowed to do what they think is morally right and not just what
complies with the law. E.g., In the Kay Gilderdale case, the jury acquitted Gilderdale of the
murder of her 31-year-old daughter. She pleaded guilty to assisting her daughter's suicide
but the jury didn't convict her because they empathised with her and understood the
situation, she was in. Her daughter was seriously ill and had been for 17 years, all Gilderdale
wanted to do was help end her daughter's suffering and fulfil her wish. Demonstrating how
justice is upheld in different ways.
Juries allow the right to a fair trial, as the jury system is popular with members of the public.
The right to be tried by our peers is a key part of court history and is viewed as a democratic
right. With there being 12 people on every jury, it means no one individual is responsible for
the verdict and allows for a more thorough examination of evidence with numerous opinions
considered. Therefore, if the defendant is found guilty by 12 people who represent the UK
population, with all opinions and evidence considered, it is likely that the verdict is safe and
of public opinion. Having 12 jury members also reduces prejudice and means no one person
can be held accountable in the case of a wrong verdict. E.g., the case of R v Wang W was
charged with having an article with a blade or point in a public place, he was found with a
Shaolin knife in his bag on a train station platform. His defence was he carried the knife to
practice his Buddhist religion but the evidence of him owning the blade 0therefore the belief
that he had committed the offence was beyond doubt. The judge directed the jury to find
Wang guilty and the defendant appealed as a result. Wang argued that the jury should be
