Juries

The jury has been a feature of English criminal trials for hundreds of
years, though originally it was a group of local men who knew the
facts of the case and could give a verdict based on their own
knowledge. Nowadays it consists of 12 independent people with no
previous knowledge of the case or the parties, deciding the case on
the basis of evidence presented in court.
Jurors are normally called for a fortnight. They are likely to hear
several cases during their service and spend a lot of time in
between just sitting around. They are not paid for their service
but are reimbursed for their lost earnings and out of pocket
expenses.

When a jury has been empaneled, but before the jurors are
sworn in, the defendant has a right to object to any one or more
jurors if he can show good cause, but the former right of
"Peremptory Challenge" was abolished in 1988. There is no doubt
that this peremptory challenge was sometimes abused, and that
jurors were occasionally challenged because it was thought they
would not be sufficiently biased in the defendants favour! The
prosecutor too may challenge for cause, and may ask a juror to
"stand by for the Crown", but this power is very rarely excised
except in cases affecting state security. The prior "vetting” of juries
is limited by guidelines issued by the Attorney-General: the
prosecution may check with the Criminal Records Office that none
of the jurors is actually disqualified, but only in sensitive cases they
can probe further. In practice only about 1% of jurors are
challenged for cause by either side.
In the case of R v Andrews 1998, a woman was convicted of
murder of her boyfriend (in what originally appeared to be a "road
rage killing ") and appealed on the grounds that adverse press
coverage had prevented a fair trial and the Judge had refused to
allow a questionnaire to be put to the jury as to identify possible
prejudice. Dismissing the appeal, Lord Justice Roch said the
questioning of potential jurors, either orally or by questionnaire
was to be avoided except in cases where they might reasonably
have a financial interest in the events on which the trial was based.
Any such questioning was of doubtful efficacy and might remind
the jurors of matters which in the interest of fairness they ought to
disregard. The law generally assume that jurors will be faithful to
their oaths to return a true verdict in accordance with the
evidence.

Selection of Jury

A Crown Court jury consists of 12 persons chosen at random from

the electoral register. They must be British, Irish commonwealth or
European citizens entitled to vote. Anyone aged between 18 and 70
can be called. The property qualification was abolished in 1972 and
most other disqualifications and exemptions were removed by the
Criminal Justice Act 2003. The selection is done using a national
computer database and from a single center at Black friars Crown
Court in London, but individual jurors are called to serve at a court
near their home. A person must also be registered as a
parliamentary or local government elector.

Disqualifications

A person with recent or serious convictions is disqualified from

jury service, including anyone sentenced to 5 years imprisonment
or more and anyone completing a shorter prison term within the
last ten years, also anyone completing a community sentence
within the last five years. A person is also disqualified if he is
mentally disordered or currently on bail and he is disqualified from
sitting in a particular case if he has any connection with the victim,
the defendant or any of the witnesses. There were formerly various
classes of people (e.g. judges, lawyers, police officers, ministers of
religion) regarded as ineligible for jury service and others such
as doctors’ MPs and members of the Armed forces, excused as of
right but these exceptions were removed by the Criminal Justice
Act 2003.

R v Salt (1996)
In this case a man was convicted of burglary, but his conviction was
quashed after the Court of Appeal was told that one of the jurors had
been the court usher's son, who had sat as a juror on 5 or 6
occasions during the previous 12 months. Lord Justice Staughton
held that there was no rule of law that the selection of jurors had to
be at random, but every effort should be made to ensure that it was.
Disability is not in itself a reason for disqualification or excusal, but
the Juries Act 1974 gives the judges power to excuse or discharge a
juror whose disability will make it impossible for him to do his
duties, or one whose command of English is not sufficient to allow
him to follow the proceedings.
Re Osman 1995
A deaf man was called for jury service at Old Bailey, and informed
the court before sitting that he would be unable to follow
proceedings without the aid of an interpreter. After questioning him,
the judge said it would be inappropriate to allow the interpreter to
join the jurors when they retired to consider their verdict and
discharged the man from jury service.

Juries’ Duty and Role

Jury duty is a civic duty. They are mainly found in the Crown Court
to try accusations of serious or either way crimes tried on
indictment. The jury is the judges of fact deciding a crime committed
intentionally or accidentally or whether or not he was using
reasonable force in self-defense. Sometimes there is a direct conflict
of evidence. Jury must use their experience of human nature in
deciding which witnesses to believe. There are more complex issues
of intention, or "honest belief” or reasonableness to be resolved that
depend upon experience of life rather than on any specialized legal
knowledge, and so it is appropriate that they should be left to the
jury after listening to all the evidence, the arguments of counsel and
the judge's explanation of the law, the jury retire to consider their
verdict - guilty or not guilty. They may also find the defendant guilty
of a lesser offence and in rare cases they may find him not guilty by
reason of insanity.
The jury’s deliberations are secret and can take as long a time they
wish. The verdict is usually unanimous but in rare cases it can be
9:3. Provision for a majority verdict was introduced to counter the
threat of "nobbling" (bribing) though it is arguable that if two
jurors favour acquittal then the prosecution has hardly proved
their case "beyond reasonable doubt." If the jury is unable to reach
a majority verdict, they must be discharged and the trial restarted
before a new jury. The jury's role ends with the return of their
verdict, they do not give reasons for their decision and play no
part in sentencing. There is no appeal against a jury's verdict of
not guilty. People see this as a failure to protect the public, but
others see it as an important safety exit through which the jury can
rescue from the power of state a defendant who does not deserve
prosecution or punishment.
The jury is responsible for deciding all questions of fact in a case.
These include not only whether it was the defendant who did the
crime, and what exactly he did but subtler questions such as
whether or not he was provoked, whether he was under
diminished responsibility, whether he intended or foresaw
particular results, or he was acting in self-defense as the amount of
force he used was reasonable. One of the most significant features
of the jury, is that it is independent of the judge and of anyone else.
The judge cannot refuse to accept their verdict even if it goes
contrary to his legal guidance and he cannot punish them for
returning a verdict he does not like.

Excusal from jury duty

Jury service is a civic duty, not an option. A person called must

attend if physically able to do so or face the possibility of
punishment for contempt of court. If there are serious personal
reasons such as ill health, examinations, or specific domestic or
business problems, but complete excusal is now granted only in
exceptional cases. Because of random selection process, many
people are never called for jury service at all, while others may be
called several times.

Advantages

1. The continued existence of the jury reinforces the principle

that no man is to be fined or imprisoned merely by the will
of the State, but only by the judgement of his equals.
2. Lord Derlin described the jury in 1956 as a " lamp that shows
that freedom lives" and suggested that no tyrant could afford
to leave a subject's freedom in the hands of twelve of his
countrymen.
3. They do not decide questions of law but questions of
 fact, including questions of reasonableness and such
questions are eminently suitable for decision by ordinary
people.

4. Jury represents the public at large. The system of justice

is more open.

5. Jury is independent of judge and does not have to give

reasons for their verdict.

6. Secrecy of the jury room protects jurors from pressure.

Disadvantages

1. It is difficult to assess the accuracy of jury verdicts or as the

means by which they reach their decisions, S. 8 of the Contempt of
Court Act 1981 makes it an offence for anyone to disclose details
of what was said in the jury room. Properly conducted research is
impossible, What we know is based on anecdotal cases, on low
statistical data, on the opinions of other participants in the trial or
observation of shadow juries.
R v Young 1995
The defendant was charged with two murders and was convicted.
It subsequently came to light that during an overnight stay at a
hotel, 4 of the jurors had been under the influence of drink and
contacted one of D's alleged victims using an Ouija board, and
obtained that the defendant was the killer. The Court of Appeal
allowed D's appeal against conviction & ordered a new trial. The
statutory prohibition on inquiries into the jury's deliberations
applied even to the Court of Appeal, said Lord Taylor CJ, but did
not apply to events that occurred during the overnight break or in
their deliberations.
2. 5% of jury convictions in Birmingham were “doubtful". A
higher proportion of jury acquittals were questionable largely
due to factors such as sympathy for the defendant or a general
mistrust of police evidence but it is fundamental to the
criminal justice system that the defendant should be given the
benefit of any" reasonable doubt' there may be.
3. Juries are gullible and too eager to acquit. On the other hand,
it may be that defendants who know, they are guilty
prefer to be tried by magistrates who will probably pass
a lighter sentence, while those who are innocent are
determined to take their case to the highest court open
to them.

4. Their inexperience and lack of legal knowledge means that

important points of evidence may have to be given several
times and then explained at length. The rules of evidence
also reflect the need to keep from the inexperienced jury a
lot of prejudicial but potentially relevant evidence.

5. Jurors may also be influenced by media, or bribed or

threatened by the defendant's friends, or may give decisions
based on prejudice. People still have preconceived ideas of
what a criminal looks like.

6 The Jury is not required to give reasons for its decisions.

There are suspicions that some decisions are based on wholly
irrelevant factors such as the personality of one of the
barristers, a prejudice in favour of the police, or perhaps
something even more extraordinary - R v. Young 1995
 7 Racial bias - some jurors may be biased against the police.
Jurors can be racially biased.

Modern-day use of jury

 Crown court for criminal trials on indictment

 High Court, Queen's Bench Division

 County Court

 Coroners' Courts

Only a small number of cases are tried by jury today.