A.C 2.5: Discuss the use of lay people in criminal cases
Jurors
A juror’s role in court is to decide on the facts of the evidence given to
them, whilst the trial judge will constantly state the law throughout the
trial. The jury are completely independent from the judge, so will decide
on a verdict independently, thus meaning the judge cannot ask how the
jury came to their decision. Throughout the court proceeding, the jury
may take notes.
Jury selection and qualification is set out in the Juries Act 1974. The
process of selection starts by being randomly selected from the electoral
roll. Once selected, the juror will be summoned to court and must attend.
Only specific criteria may excuse a jury service, such as being heavily
pregnant or a pre-planned holiday. To be eligible for a jury service, a
person must be aged 18-75 and a resident of the UK for 5 years. The
Criminal Justice Act 2003 now allows legal professionals, such as solicitors
to be summoned for jury service. However, if a person has been
imprisoned for five or more years, they would be disqualified permanently
from jury service or for 10 years if the juror has been in prison within the
last 10 years.
Strengths
Jury equity is a strength of jurors, as they are considered ‘lay people’ who
can bring their own ‘justice’ or fairness to the case. R v Owens highlights
when jury equity is evident, as the defendant was charged with attempted
murder of a careless driver, who killed his son. The jury understood the
motive behind the attempt and acquitted him. The case of R v Gilderdale,
also highlighted jury equity, as the defendant was accused of attempted
murder by aiding her own daughter’s suicide, who suffered with ME so
severe she was paralysed. The jury felt that she had done what was
necessary and found her not guilty of attempted murder. Another strength
of the jury is that a trial by one’s peers is seen to be reliable and authentic
in ensuring justice It also has the advantage that a trial by peers is viewed
as reliable and authentic in securing justice. With the public having
confidence in jury trials; Lord Devlin stating that it is ‘the lamp which
shows freedom lives.’ As there are 12 lay people that sit as jury, it means
that no one person is held responsible for the decision made. A positive,
as in private the jury can discuss the case and decide a verdict that may
not be popular with the general public, as per the Contempt of Court Act
1981. The jury too must stay objective and impartial throughout the trial
and have no connection with the case.
Weaknesses
In comparison to a judge or magistrates, who will explain their verdict –
the jury is not required to. Even if the evidence is wholly pointing to a
guilty verdict. They too cannot be questioned about their decision, as in
the case of R v Conner & Rollock (2004). A limitation of jury equity is that
there is a risk of perverse verdict, where the jury will ignore the direction
on law given by the judge. As shown in the case of R v Penguin Books
(1961), where Penguin Books were prosecuted under the Obscene
Publications Act 1959, however the jury returned a verdict of not guilty.
Ignoring the judge’s subjective judgement that contained phrases such as
“Now do you call that moral?’ It was also the case in R v Kronlid where the
Jurors
A juror’s role in court is to decide on the facts of the evidence given to
them, whilst the trial judge will constantly state the law throughout the
trial. The jury are completely independent from the judge, so will decide
on a verdict independently, thus meaning the judge cannot ask how the
jury came to their decision. Throughout the court proceeding, the jury
may take notes.
Jury selection and qualification is set out in the Juries Act 1974. The
process of selection starts by being randomly selected from the electoral
roll. Once selected, the juror will be summoned to court and must attend.
Only specific criteria may excuse a jury service, such as being heavily
pregnant or a pre-planned holiday. To be eligible for a jury service, a
person must be aged 18-75 and a resident of the UK for 5 years. The
Criminal Justice Act 2003 now allows legal professionals, such as solicitors
to be summoned for jury service. However, if a person has been
imprisoned for five or more years, they would be disqualified permanently
from jury service or for 10 years if the juror has been in prison within the
last 10 years.
Strengths
Jury equity is a strength of jurors, as they are considered ‘lay people’ who
can bring their own ‘justice’ or fairness to the case. R v Owens highlights
when jury equity is evident, as the defendant was charged with attempted
murder of a careless driver, who killed his son. The jury understood the
motive behind the attempt and acquitted him. The case of R v Gilderdale,
also highlighted jury equity, as the defendant was accused of attempted
murder by aiding her own daughter’s suicide, who suffered with ME so
severe she was paralysed. The jury felt that she had done what was
necessary and found her not guilty of attempted murder. Another strength
of the jury is that a trial by one’s peers is seen to be reliable and authentic
in ensuring justice It also has the advantage that a trial by peers is viewed
as reliable and authentic in securing justice. With the public having
confidence in jury trials; Lord Devlin stating that it is ‘the lamp which
shows freedom lives.’ As there are 12 lay people that sit as jury, it means
that no one person is held responsible for the decision made. A positive,
as in private the jury can discuss the case and decide a verdict that may
not be popular with the general public, as per the Contempt of Court Act
1981. The jury too must stay objective and impartial throughout the trial
and have no connection with the case.
Weaknesses
In comparison to a judge or magistrates, who will explain their verdict –
the jury is not required to. Even if the evidence is wholly pointing to a
guilty verdict. They too cannot be questioned about their decision, as in
the case of R v Conner & Rollock (2004). A limitation of jury equity is that
there is a risk of perverse verdict, where the jury will ignore the direction
on law given by the judge. As shown in the case of R v Penguin Books
(1961), where Penguin Books were prosecuted under the Obscene
Publications Act 1959, however the jury returned a verdict of not guilty.
Ignoring the judge’s subjective judgement that contained phrases such as
“Now do you call that moral?’ It was also the case in R v Kronlid where the
