A.C.2.5 - Discuss the use of lay people in criminal cases
➔ Laypeople are ordinary members of the public with no legal qualifications or professional
knowledge of law
➔ 2 key roles: juries or magistrates
Juries
★ Verdict decided by jury in Crown Court of 12 laypeople after hearing evidence and arguments
by prosecutions and defence
★ Then, retire to discuss and decide verdict in secret
★ Under Criminal Justice and and Courts Act 2015, offences for anyone to question the
jurors about verdict or how they reached it
★ Jurors selected randomly from electoral register, receive summons to attend court,
usually 2 weeks or longer if trial goes beyond
★ Juries Act 1974: CJA 2003
★ Eligible are over 18 to 75, and citizens UK, Irish Republic, British Commonwealth.
Reside in UK, Channel Islands or Isle of Man for 5 years
★ Disqualified those on bail, received prison sentence of 5 years, anyone received
shorter is disqualified for 10 years
★ Possibility to be excused as medical and other reasonable grounds (holiday paid for,
pregnancy)
+ Jury Equity, jury not bound by law and are free to decide a case based on what they
feel is fair or morally right, regardless what jury says
+ Kay Gilderdale 2010, attempted murder / euthanasia of critically ill daughter.
Administered drugs and she plead guilty to assisted suicide, CPS charged
her. But, the jury acquitted her.
+ Clive Ponting acted in public interest to reveal gov. Secrets
+ Bushells’ 1670
+ Justice is seen to be done → ordinary members of public decide outcome
+ Impartiality and a fair trial
+ Secrecy
+ Public Confidence and democracy
- Racial Bias
- Sander had racial bias concerns in the unjust verdict. Jurors made racist
remarks of an Asian man.
- Media influence
- R V Taylor and Taylor . High profile case made inaccurate stories - Fraud trials
- Cheryl Thomas on jurors’ understanding of technical language - Jury Tampering
- R V Twomey would cost £6 million to protect jury
- High acquittal rates
- Perverse decisions
- R V Randle and Pottle - found not guilty a it was 25 years later
- R V Kronlid - ignore unjust laws against facts of the case
- Secrecy
➔ Laypeople are ordinary members of the public with no legal qualifications or professional
knowledge of law
➔ 2 key roles: juries or magistrates
Juries
★ Verdict decided by jury in Crown Court of 12 laypeople after hearing evidence and arguments
by prosecutions and defence
★ Then, retire to discuss and decide verdict in secret
★ Under Criminal Justice and and Courts Act 2015, offences for anyone to question the
jurors about verdict or how they reached it
★ Jurors selected randomly from electoral register, receive summons to attend court,
usually 2 weeks or longer if trial goes beyond
★ Juries Act 1974: CJA 2003
★ Eligible are over 18 to 75, and citizens UK, Irish Republic, British Commonwealth.
Reside in UK, Channel Islands or Isle of Man for 5 years
★ Disqualified those on bail, received prison sentence of 5 years, anyone received
shorter is disqualified for 10 years
★ Possibility to be excused as medical and other reasonable grounds (holiday paid for,
pregnancy)
+ Jury Equity, jury not bound by law and are free to decide a case based on what they
feel is fair or morally right, regardless what jury says
+ Kay Gilderdale 2010, attempted murder / euthanasia of critically ill daughter.
Administered drugs and she plead guilty to assisted suicide, CPS charged
her. But, the jury acquitted her.
+ Clive Ponting acted in public interest to reveal gov. Secrets
+ Bushells’ 1670
+ Justice is seen to be done → ordinary members of public decide outcome
+ Impartiality and a fair trial
+ Secrecy
+ Public Confidence and democracy
- Racial Bias
- Sander had racial bias concerns in the unjust verdict. Jurors made racist
remarks of an Asian man.
- Media influence
- R V Taylor and Taylor . High profile case made inaccurate stories - Fraud trials
- Cheryl Thomas on jurors’ understanding of technical language - Jury Tampering
- R V Twomey would cost £6 million to protect jury
- High acquittal rates
- Perverse decisions
- R V Randle and Pottle - found not guilty a it was 25 years later
- R V Kronlid - ignore unjust laws against facts of the case
- Secrecy
