Topic 2.5 - Discuss the use of laypeople in criminal cases (6 marks, 30 mins)
Laypeople in the legal system
Members of the public who serve as members of juries and as magistrates.
Juries
In most Crown Court cases and other situations like inquests into sudden deaths.
The jury’s role
Verdict is usually decided by a jury of 12 laypeople. Hear evidence and arguments by prosecution and defence. Judge can give advice on law. Retire from
the courtroom and decide if they find the defendant guilty, not guilty, or guilty of a less serious crime such as manslaughter than murder. Guilty verdict
must be convinced ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. Is in secret and Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 makes it an offence for anyone to question jurors
about verdict. Only allowed to disclose deliberations to report misconduct by other jurors.
Selection - Chosen at random from electoral roll. Then they receive a summons to attend court. Normally for 2 weeks.
Eligibility - Juries act 1974 and Criminal Justice Act 2003 say you must be aged 18 to 75, be a citizen of the UK, Irish Republic or a British
Commonwealth country and have lived in the UK, Channel Islands or Isle of Man for five years.
Disqualification - On bail, received a prison sentence of five or more years. Anyone who received a shorter sentence is disqualified for 10 years.
Exemption - Medical, religious beliefs, full time members of armed service, members of parliament or holiday you’ve already paid for.
Strengths of the jury system
Jury members are ordinary people who bring their own fairness (jury equity). And even if a judge describes the law, the jury can still reach a verdict
contradictory to evidence given.
Jury equity
Aren’t bound by what the law says. Free to decide cases based on what is fair, regardless of law or how a judge may direct them in a case.
Case study - Clive Ponting - Civil servant at the Ministry of Defence. Leaked documents to a Labour MP that concerned circumstances surrounding the
sinking of the Argentine cruiser General Belgrano by a British submarine during the 1982 Falklands War. Ponting was prosecuted under the Official
Secrets Act 1911 but sought the sympathy of the jury, arguing that the public had a right to know and that his actions were in the public interest.
Had no defence in law, the jury returned a not guilty verdict
Case study - Kay Gilderdale - Charged with attempted murder of her daughter who had been very ill for 17 years. Evidence showed Kay was a devoted
and caring mum. Her daughter wanted to commit suicide by injecting herself with morphine. When this didn't work her mum administered other drugs
and she died a few hours later. She pleaded guilty to assisted suicide but CPS prosecuted her with attempted murder. Jury acquitted her.
Justice is seen to be done
Make the legal system more open and justice can be seen to be done as it’s members of the public who decide the outcome. As the judge explains the law to
the jury , the defendant and public can understand the case better.
, Impartiality and a fairer trial
Fairer when tried by jury as they are your peers instead of by a judge or magistrates who don’t understand your circumstances. Cross-section makes it
likely that individual prejudices won't matter and an impartial jury created. And as the jury only sits for 2 weeks and only hears a few cases, it doesn’t
become case hardened.
Secrecy
Deliberations in secret mean less pressures and influences allowing verdicts that won't be popular with the public to be made. Allows jury equity to
happen. Makes people more willing to be on jury.
Public confidence and democracy
To be judged by peers instead of the state is good in keeping the state's power and preserving liberty and jury is important in democratic society. Public
has confidence in its fairness and impartiality. Allows normal citizens to be in administration of justice instead of leaving it to state.
Case study - R v Kronlid (1996) - Four female peace campaigners were acquitted after causing £1.5 million of damage to a Hawk jet fighter destined for
export to Indonesia. Defendants argued they were seeking to protect the civilian population of East Timor, which at the time was under illegal occupation
by the Indonesian military regime. The jury ignored the points of law and instead did what they thought was morally right, which was to acquit them.
Weaknesses of the jury system
Jury doesn’t give reasons for their decision so perverse verdicts or ones that go against the evidence can be given, whereas judges and magistrates always
give reasons for their decision.
Racial bias
Causes unjust verdicts for example, Sander v United Kingdom (2000), about an Asian man Mr Sander, a juror wrote to the judge saying two other jurors
were making racist jokes and remarks. Judge allowed the trial to continue. The European Court of Human Rights upheld his appeal that he didn't have a
fair trial. However, it isn’t clear how much racial bias affects juries verdicts. But an independent review shows that verdicts delivered by juries aren’t
influenced by the ethnicity of the defendant. Also shown that minority defendants were more likely than white defendants to go for a jury trial at Crown
Court, as they are more likely to get a fair hearing there than in the magistrates court.
Media influence
Jurors may be influenced by media coverage for example, R v Taylor and Taylor (1993). Jury found Taylor sisters guilty of murder, Court of Appeal stopped
it as the ‘extensive, sensational and inaccurate’ press coverage means the jury could be prejudiced by it. 12% of jurors admitted to looking up information
about the case.
Also the criminal and Justice Act 2015 makes it a criminal offence for a juror to search the internet for information. Theordora Dallas was jailed for
this, by bringing outside media into the court, making the trial unfair and unjust as jurors could have stereotyped the offender and decided they were
guilty despite evidence given.
Fraud trials
Complex technical evidence that jurors may not understand so the verdict may be unsound. Cases can be very long which means jurors are away from
work for months and they are more expensive for prosecution and defence. Cheryl Thomas used stimulated trials with 800 jurors to study their
understanding. All given the same judge’s directions on law. When tested, found that more than two thirds of jurors didn't understand the directions.
When given a written summary, over half still didn’t understand.
Laypeople in the legal system
Members of the public who serve as members of juries and as magistrates.
Juries
In most Crown Court cases and other situations like inquests into sudden deaths.
The jury’s role
Verdict is usually decided by a jury of 12 laypeople. Hear evidence and arguments by prosecution and defence. Judge can give advice on law. Retire from
the courtroom and decide if they find the defendant guilty, not guilty, or guilty of a less serious crime such as manslaughter than murder. Guilty verdict
must be convinced ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. Is in secret and Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 makes it an offence for anyone to question jurors
about verdict. Only allowed to disclose deliberations to report misconduct by other jurors.
Selection - Chosen at random from electoral roll. Then they receive a summons to attend court. Normally for 2 weeks.
Eligibility - Juries act 1974 and Criminal Justice Act 2003 say you must be aged 18 to 75, be a citizen of the UK, Irish Republic or a British
Commonwealth country and have lived in the UK, Channel Islands or Isle of Man for five years.
Disqualification - On bail, received a prison sentence of five or more years. Anyone who received a shorter sentence is disqualified for 10 years.
Exemption - Medical, religious beliefs, full time members of armed service, members of parliament or holiday you’ve already paid for.
Strengths of the jury system
Jury members are ordinary people who bring their own fairness (jury equity). And even if a judge describes the law, the jury can still reach a verdict
contradictory to evidence given.
Jury equity
Aren’t bound by what the law says. Free to decide cases based on what is fair, regardless of law or how a judge may direct them in a case.
Case study - Clive Ponting - Civil servant at the Ministry of Defence. Leaked documents to a Labour MP that concerned circumstances surrounding the
sinking of the Argentine cruiser General Belgrano by a British submarine during the 1982 Falklands War. Ponting was prosecuted under the Official
Secrets Act 1911 but sought the sympathy of the jury, arguing that the public had a right to know and that his actions were in the public interest.
Had no defence in law, the jury returned a not guilty verdict
Case study - Kay Gilderdale - Charged with attempted murder of her daughter who had been very ill for 17 years. Evidence showed Kay was a devoted
and caring mum. Her daughter wanted to commit suicide by injecting herself with morphine. When this didn't work her mum administered other drugs
and she died a few hours later. She pleaded guilty to assisted suicide but CPS prosecuted her with attempted murder. Jury acquitted her.
Justice is seen to be done
Make the legal system more open and justice can be seen to be done as it’s members of the public who decide the outcome. As the judge explains the law to
the jury , the defendant and public can understand the case better.
, Impartiality and a fairer trial
Fairer when tried by jury as they are your peers instead of by a judge or magistrates who don’t understand your circumstances. Cross-section makes it
likely that individual prejudices won't matter and an impartial jury created. And as the jury only sits for 2 weeks and only hears a few cases, it doesn’t
become case hardened.
Secrecy
Deliberations in secret mean less pressures and influences allowing verdicts that won't be popular with the public to be made. Allows jury equity to
happen. Makes people more willing to be on jury.
Public confidence and democracy
To be judged by peers instead of the state is good in keeping the state's power and preserving liberty and jury is important in democratic society. Public
has confidence in its fairness and impartiality. Allows normal citizens to be in administration of justice instead of leaving it to state.
Case study - R v Kronlid (1996) - Four female peace campaigners were acquitted after causing £1.5 million of damage to a Hawk jet fighter destined for
export to Indonesia. Defendants argued they were seeking to protect the civilian population of East Timor, which at the time was under illegal occupation
by the Indonesian military regime. The jury ignored the points of law and instead did what they thought was morally right, which was to acquit them.
Weaknesses of the jury system
Jury doesn’t give reasons for their decision so perverse verdicts or ones that go against the evidence can be given, whereas judges and magistrates always
give reasons for their decision.
Racial bias
Causes unjust verdicts for example, Sander v United Kingdom (2000), about an Asian man Mr Sander, a juror wrote to the judge saying two other jurors
were making racist jokes and remarks. Judge allowed the trial to continue. The European Court of Human Rights upheld his appeal that he didn't have a
fair trial. However, it isn’t clear how much racial bias affects juries verdicts. But an independent review shows that verdicts delivered by juries aren’t
influenced by the ethnicity of the defendant. Also shown that minority defendants were more likely than white defendants to go for a jury trial at Crown
Court, as they are more likely to get a fair hearing there than in the magistrates court.
Media influence
Jurors may be influenced by media coverage for example, R v Taylor and Taylor (1993). Jury found Taylor sisters guilty of murder, Court of Appeal stopped
it as the ‘extensive, sensational and inaccurate’ press coverage means the jury could be prejudiced by it. 12% of jurors admitted to looking up information
about the case.
Also the criminal and Justice Act 2015 makes it a criminal offence for a juror to search the internet for information. Theordora Dallas was jailed for
this, by bringing outside media into the court, making the trial unfair and unjust as jurors could have stereotyped the offender and decided they were
guilty despite evidence given.
Fraud trials
Complex technical evidence that jurors may not understand so the verdict may be unsound. Cases can be very long which means jurors are away from
work for months and they are more expensive for prosecution and defence. Cheryl Thomas used stimulated trials with 800 jurors to study their
understanding. All given the same judge’s directions on law. When tested, found that more than two thirds of jurors didn't understand the directions.
When given a written summary, over half still didn’t understand.
