AC 2.5: Discuss the Use of Laypeople in Criminal Cases
A layperson is a member of the public who doesn’t have legal qualifications or professional knowledge
of the law. Laypeople can be involved with criminal trials in court by being a magistrate or being a
member of the jury. A magistrate is a layperson who has volunteered to sit in court and decide if a case
has been proven, and a juror is a member of the public who decides the outcome of a criminal case.
Jurors are members of the public without legal knowledge who are randomly selected from the electoral
register to consider a criminal case’s evidence and decide its outcome. However, for some it could be an
offence to serve on a jury. This would be the case if someone had been on probation or bail, or had a
criminal record and served a sentence. Someone may also not be eligible to be a juror if they already
know information about or have a link to the case. 12 jurors are chosen to sit in on a case which usually
lasts around 10 working days. They affirm or take the oath before the trial begins. Jurors must base their
opinion entirely on the evidence they hear and must not disclose any information about the case
outside the courtroom. All jurors must agree on a verdict for it to be passed. They may choose not to
follow the law, and instead agree on a verdict that is morally right. This is called jury equity, and a prime
example of this is the case of R v Owen. In this case, the defendant, Owen, had shot a lorry driver after
he had killed his son whilst driving an unroadworthy vehicle. Despite Owen being guilty of shooting the
driver, the jury ultimately found him not guilty, following their morals rather than the suggestion of the
law. Some jury members even congratulated Owen after the trial, saying they would have done the
same thing. Jury equity means that defendants are more likely to receive a fair trial when being judged
by people equal to them, compared to if the verdict had been decided by a judge.
Using laypeople in juries has strengths and weaknesses. For example, randomly choosing members of
the public results in a diverse group of people who feel they are fulfilling their civic duties by doing jury
duty and enacting justice. Due to not being allowed to research the case they are sitting in on or similar
cases, the jury doesn’t follow past judgements. Instead, they base their decisions purely on the evidence
before them. However, one of the most important reasons for using laypeople in the jury is removing
unconscious bias, whether this is racial or gender bias, for example. This is because the justice system is
meant to treat everyone fairly and equally, but if a conviction is based off a biased opinion (intentional
or not), then there is no fairness within court.
On the other hand, using laypeople within juries also has weaknesses. One of these is the media, which
could influence jurors and their decisions. This is extremely likely during well documented cases such as
the Johnny Depp v Amber Heard trial, as it covered the news and internet leading to it being very
difficult to avoid reading about. Alternatively, jurors could actively search for similar cases to gauge
previous verdicts or outcomes, which a study by Cheryl Thomas found that 12% of jurors asked had
admitted to doing. As well as this, using laypeople themselves may be an occasional weakness in a
criminal case, as their lack of qualifications and knowledge about the law might mean they find it
difficult to appropriately assess or understand the evidence before them. One of the biggest weaknesses
for using laypeople in juries is jury prejudice, because despite jurors being chosen at random in a bid to
remove this, a juror could still be prejudiced towards anyone involved in a case, whether consciously or
unconsciously. If just one juror showed prejudice in their decision, the whole verdict could be affected
as not all 12 jurors agree.
A layperson is a member of the public who doesn’t have legal qualifications or professional knowledge
of the law. Laypeople can be involved with criminal trials in court by being a magistrate or being a
member of the jury. A magistrate is a layperson who has volunteered to sit in court and decide if a case
has been proven, and a juror is a member of the public who decides the outcome of a criminal case.
Jurors are members of the public without legal knowledge who are randomly selected from the electoral
register to consider a criminal case’s evidence and decide its outcome. However, for some it could be an
offence to serve on a jury. This would be the case if someone had been on probation or bail, or had a
criminal record and served a sentence. Someone may also not be eligible to be a juror if they already
know information about or have a link to the case. 12 jurors are chosen to sit in on a case which usually
lasts around 10 working days. They affirm or take the oath before the trial begins. Jurors must base their
opinion entirely on the evidence they hear and must not disclose any information about the case
outside the courtroom. All jurors must agree on a verdict for it to be passed. They may choose not to
follow the law, and instead agree on a verdict that is morally right. This is called jury equity, and a prime
example of this is the case of R v Owen. In this case, the defendant, Owen, had shot a lorry driver after
he had killed his son whilst driving an unroadworthy vehicle. Despite Owen being guilty of shooting the
driver, the jury ultimately found him not guilty, following their morals rather than the suggestion of the
law. Some jury members even congratulated Owen after the trial, saying they would have done the
same thing. Jury equity means that defendants are more likely to receive a fair trial when being judged
by people equal to them, compared to if the verdict had been decided by a judge.
Using laypeople in juries has strengths and weaknesses. For example, randomly choosing members of
the public results in a diverse group of people who feel they are fulfilling their civic duties by doing jury
duty and enacting justice. Due to not being allowed to research the case they are sitting in on or similar
cases, the jury doesn’t follow past judgements. Instead, they base their decisions purely on the evidence
before them. However, one of the most important reasons for using laypeople in the jury is removing
unconscious bias, whether this is racial or gender bias, for example. This is because the justice system is
meant to treat everyone fairly and equally, but if a conviction is based off a biased opinion (intentional
or not), then there is no fairness within court.
On the other hand, using laypeople within juries also has weaknesses. One of these is the media, which
could influence jurors and their decisions. This is extremely likely during well documented cases such as
the Johnny Depp v Amber Heard trial, as it covered the news and internet leading to it being very
difficult to avoid reading about. Alternatively, jurors could actively search for similar cases to gauge
previous verdicts or outcomes, which a study by Cheryl Thomas found that 12% of jurors asked had
admitted to doing. As well as this, using laypeople themselves may be an occasional weakness in a
criminal case, as their lack of qualifications and knowledge about the law might mean they find it
difficult to appropriately assess or understand the evidence before them. One of the biggest weaknesses
for using laypeople in juries is jury prejudice, because despite jurors being chosen at random in a bid to
remove this, a juror could still be prejudiced towards anyone involved in a case, whether consciously or
unconsciously. If just one juror showed prejudice in their decision, the whole verdict could be affected
as not all 12 jurors agree.
