AC2.5 Discuss the use of lay people in criminal cases (6 Marks)
Structure: Bullet point to develop in Controlled assessment:
Explain Lay people Lay people are non-legal experts, they make a decision on the facts in a case
Magistrates court = Magistrates
Crown court = Juries
Why are Lay people Lay people represent the whole community, which reduces bias as they have no legal
used? background, which increases the objectivity in the decision making in a case.
Jurors are regular people from the local community, they are:
§ Randomly chosen
§ Aged between 18-75
Explain Jurors
§ Lived in the UK, Channel Islands or the Isle of Man in the past 5 years
§ No prior convictions
They will listen to the evidence presented then make a final decision. Trials using a
jury only happen in 1% of criminal cases.
Juries are ordinary people – Each member of the jury will have their own morals,
which they can bring to the case. This is known as jury equity; the jury can reach a
decision that doesn’t follow what the evidence suggests.
Case Study – R v Owen
Shows jury equity, the defendant's son was killed in a road accident by a careless
Strength 1 of Jurors driver, the driver was only sentenced to 12 months in prison, which the defendant
deemed insufficient, so he shot the driver in the arm to get justice for his son. The
evidence in the case clearly showed the boy's father shot the driver, but the jury
understood why the father did it, so acquitted him of the crime, which shows jury
equity.
The jury consists of 12 people – The final decision can be discussed between
Strength 2 of Jurors different people rather than only getting one individual take on the case, so different
opinions can be taken into account.
Juries are impartial – They have no relation to anyone in the case and should be as
Strength 3 of Jurors unaware as possible of any information about the case in the media, before the trail
starts, this will make the trail less biased.
Juries are regular people – They may have personal biases/prejudices to the people
in the case, which can cause discrimination and ultimately a miscarriage of justice.
Weakness 1 of Case Study – Sander v United Kingdom
Jurors An Asian man was tried for conspiracy to defraud, in the trial it was reported by a
juror that two fellow jurors were making racist comments, which meant he was
denied a fair trial.
Weakness 2 of Juries may not understand – In complex cases that involve difficult areas of law it
Jurors could confuse the jury, as they have no knowledge on the law and there are no tests
beforehand to check a jury members intelligence.
Weakness 3 of Juries can cause a miscarriage of justice – Members of the jury might be open to
Jurors Jury nobbling/intimidation or tampering.
Magistrates are:
Explain Magistrates § Aged 18-65
§ Volunteer to sit in court (unpaid)
§ They decide the appropriate sentence
§ Always have a qualified Clerk with them for support
Strength 1 of Specific Knowledge – Magistrates sit in their local area, which means they have
magistrates knowledge about the community and the crimes facing it, so they have a better
understanding of the case and can make an informed decision.
The Magistrates court results in a small number of appeals – All criminal cases
Strength 2 of begin in the magistrates' court and around 95% remain in the Magistrates court. The
magistrates fact that there's a small number of appeals shows Magistrates result in justice being
served majority of the time.
Structure: Bullet point to develop in Controlled assessment:
Explain Lay people Lay people are non-legal experts, they make a decision on the facts in a case
Magistrates court = Magistrates
Crown court = Juries
Why are Lay people Lay people represent the whole community, which reduces bias as they have no legal
used? background, which increases the objectivity in the decision making in a case.
Jurors are regular people from the local community, they are:
§ Randomly chosen
§ Aged between 18-75
Explain Jurors
§ Lived in the UK, Channel Islands or the Isle of Man in the past 5 years
§ No prior convictions
They will listen to the evidence presented then make a final decision. Trials using a
jury only happen in 1% of criminal cases.
Juries are ordinary people – Each member of the jury will have their own morals,
which they can bring to the case. This is known as jury equity; the jury can reach a
decision that doesn’t follow what the evidence suggests.
Case Study – R v Owen
Shows jury equity, the defendant's son was killed in a road accident by a careless
Strength 1 of Jurors driver, the driver was only sentenced to 12 months in prison, which the defendant
deemed insufficient, so he shot the driver in the arm to get justice for his son. The
evidence in the case clearly showed the boy's father shot the driver, but the jury
understood why the father did it, so acquitted him of the crime, which shows jury
equity.
The jury consists of 12 people – The final decision can be discussed between
Strength 2 of Jurors different people rather than only getting one individual take on the case, so different
opinions can be taken into account.
Juries are impartial – They have no relation to anyone in the case and should be as
Strength 3 of Jurors unaware as possible of any information about the case in the media, before the trail
starts, this will make the trail less biased.
Juries are regular people – They may have personal biases/prejudices to the people
in the case, which can cause discrimination and ultimately a miscarriage of justice.
Weakness 1 of Case Study – Sander v United Kingdom
Jurors An Asian man was tried for conspiracy to defraud, in the trial it was reported by a
juror that two fellow jurors were making racist comments, which meant he was
denied a fair trial.
Weakness 2 of Juries may not understand – In complex cases that involve difficult areas of law it
Jurors could confuse the jury, as they have no knowledge on the law and there are no tests
beforehand to check a jury members intelligence.
Weakness 3 of Juries can cause a miscarriage of justice – Members of the jury might be open to
Jurors Jury nobbling/intimidation or tampering.
Magistrates are:
Explain Magistrates § Aged 18-65
§ Volunteer to sit in court (unpaid)
§ They decide the appropriate sentence
§ Always have a qualified Clerk with them for support
Strength 1 of Specific Knowledge – Magistrates sit in their local area, which means they have
magistrates knowledge about the community and the crimes facing it, so they have a better
understanding of the case and can make an informed decision.
The Magistrates court results in a small number of appeals – All criminal cases
Strength 2 of begin in the magistrates' court and around 95% remain in the Magistrates court. The
magistrates fact that there's a small number of appeals shows Magistrates result in justice being
served majority of the time.
