Criminal Process: Jury Trial

Objectives:

• Explain the history of jury trial
• Explain jury selection
• Describe the role of the jury within the criminal justice system
• Explain the role of the civil jury
• Critically evaluate jury trial and suggest reforms and alternatives
• Apply your knowledge of juries to given case studies
  

Quiz:

1. When did jury trial begin? - the Norman Conquest
2. What went before jury trial? Trial by ordeal
3. How many sit on a jury? - 12 in criminal, 8 in civil libel
4. What courts do they sit in? County Court, Crown Court
5. What types of cases are they involved in? Civil and Criminal
6. How many cases are they involved in? 
7. What qualification do you need to sit on a jury? No qualifications but chosen from the Electoral Register
8. What is their role? - To determine whether a person is innocent or guilty

A person may not be allowed to take part in jury service if they have a previous criminal offence, are on probation or in custody

History of Jury Trial

1066 - Trial by ordeal - the defendant was put through a painful/uncomfortable/dangerous ordeal in order to determine whether they were innocent or guilty

12th Century - Trial by peers

1670 - Bushell's Case - Jurors were imprisoned for coming to a verdict that the court did not like - Principle: Juries are supposed to be independent 

R v Wang (2005) - set the precedent that Jurors are the only people who can decide on facts. If a point of law arises e.g self-defence, it is the duty of the court to explain it, and equip the jury with necessary knowledge to reach a verdict

When are Juries used?

• Criminal cases - Juries can be used in Criminal cases (Crown Court 'either way' offences - cases that might be heard either in the Magistrates' Court or Crown Court) - 1% (30,000) of cases are dealt with in this way 
• To decide whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty beyond reasonable doubt
• Criminal Justice Act 2003 - allows for trial by judge alone if there has been or is a risk of jury tampering - R v Twomey (2009)
• Unanimous and majority verdicts

The Civil Jury:

• Civil Jury - less than 1%
• Decide for or against the claimant and, in some cases, the award of damages

Supreme Court Act 1981 qualified right to jury trial

• Malicious prosecution
• False imprisonment
• Fraud

Defamation Act 2011 removed defamation cases from jury trial

The Coroner's Court

• A jury of between seven and eleven member may be used to inquire into deaths
• The Coroners and Justice Act 2009 has provisions for changes to the use of juries in Coroners' Courts. Under this a jury will be used only if:
• There is a reason to suspect that the deceased died while in custody and that either
• The death was a violent or unnatural one, or
• The cause of death is unknown
• The death resulted from an act or omission of a police office
• The death was caused by a notifiable accident, poisoning or disease
• The coroner will commonly direct the jury as to which verdicts are available in a particular case

History of Jury Trial
The Juries Act 1974 states who is eligible for jury service in the UK (the Criminal Justice Act 2003 changed the terms of eligibility, but I only realised this after writing down all of the conditions of the Juries Act so I'm putting them here anyway
One qualifies and can be called for jury duty if:

• They are registered as a parliamentary or local government elector
• They are between the ages of 18-75
• They have been ordinarily resident in the UK, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man for any period of at least five years since the age of 13
• They are not otherwise ineligible or disqualified

The following persons are ineligible for jury service:

• The judiciary
• Those concerned with administration of justice, e.g policemen, solicitors, barristers, forensic scientists or prison wardens
• The clergy
• The mentally ill

The following persons are disqualified from jury service:

• Those sentenced to more than five years in prison
• Those who have been in prison within the previous ten years
• Those who have been on probation within the previous five years
• Those on probation

The following persons may be excused from jury service:

• Those who are 76 or over
• Members of the Houses of Parliament
• Members of the European Parliament
• Members of the Welsh assembly
• Serving members of the naval, military or air forces
• Members of the medical profession, e.g registered doctors, nurses, dentists, vets
• Members of religious orders whose beliefs are incompatible with jury service
• Those who have previously served on a jury within the past two years

Criminal Justice Act 2003:

• This act removed various former grounds of ineligibility, which meant that more people became available to call for jury duty, including the judiciary, members of the medical profession, the clergy, politicians etc

Non-Jury Trials

• Section 44-50 of Part 7 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 provide for non-jury trial in cases where there is danger of jury tampering or where jury tampering has taken place
• R v Twomey (2004)
• An armed robbery occurred at a warehouse - the appellants were tried without a jury under section 44 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 because improper approaches were being made to two members of the jury
• Non-jury trials can also take place in cases such as fraud, as the jury probably would not have the right knowledge of the subject matter to be able to judge the case fairly, and the trial may be too long for the jury to be able to retain and assess the evidence which they have heard

The Jury

• Jury selection - Central Summoning Bureau
• Jury challenging:
• The methods of replacing one or more of the prospective jurors called into the box are:
• For the prosecution to ask a juror to stand by
• For either the prosecution or the defence to challenge for cause
• For the judge to use their discretionary power to remove a juror
• R v Andrews (1998):
• Where there was no suggestion that potential jurors in a criminal trial might have an interest in the case, such as having lost money in transactions which formed the basis of the trial, the questioning of jurors either orally or by use of a questionnaire was, save in the most exceptional of circumstances, to be avoided.
• Discharging the jury
• Gregory v UK (1997):
• It was decided that a judge's direction to the jury to disregard any question of racial bias was sufficient to ensure a fair trial
• Individual jurors:
• During a trial, an individual juror can be discharged and the trial can continue as long as the minimum number of jurors remain. Discharge is at the discretion of the judge and should be exercised in cases of "evident necessity"
• Whole jury:
• Where misconduct cannot be dealt with by discharge of an individual juror, or in the case of jury tampering, or where the jury cannot teach a verdict, the entire jury can be discharged. The matter lies at the discretion of the judge

Eligibility        ·       Aged 18-70 (although the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 proposes to to  extend this to 75)       ·       Registered on the electoral register       ·       Resident in the UK, Channel Islands, or Isle of Man for at least five years since the age of 13       ·       Not disqualified	Disqualification       ·       Persons on bail       ·       Those with serious criminal convictions       ·       Mentally disordered persons
Deferral       ·       Anyone can apply to defer their jury duty. Reasons for deferral include examinations, having a holiday booked, a wedding, surgery, etc. Jury duty can be deferred once and must be retaken within a 12 month period of the deferral	Excusal       ·       Discretionary (up to the court) excusal can be applied for by anyone       ·       Automatic right of excusal applies to full time serving members of the armed forces and those who have served as a juror in the last two years

Jury Vetting:

• R v Sheffield:
• Two police officers were being brought to trial for assault.
• They applied to the judge for an order directing the prosecution to inform the defence whether any members of the jury had criminal convictions and if so, to give details
• R v Mason (1996):
• Ruled in favour of vetting of criminal records to uphold the law that disqualified persons must not sit on a jury
• R v Obellim (1996):
• The judge received a written question from the jury showing too much knowledge of the criminal justice system. 
• He ordered a security check on the jury without telling the defence.
• The defendant appealed on the grounds that the check on the jury might have prejudiced them.
•  It was decided that the judge should have informed the defence before ordering such a check

Are juries representative of society?

• R v Ford (1989):
• A defendant who was mixed race applied for a multi-racial jury. The jury was entirely white.
• The judge decided that he had no power to select a multi-racial jury, as jurors are meant to be selected completely at random
• R v Bansal (1985):
• There was an application to transfer a case from Maidstone to London so as to obtain a multi-racial jury to try charges of assault on a policeman at an anti-National Front demonstration

Jury Secrecy

For Secrecy and Against Disclosure:

• Ensures freedom of discussion in the jury room
• Protects jurors from outside influences e.g harassment
• If the public knew how juries reached their verdict they may respect the decision less
• Without secrecy, people may be reluctant to serve as jurors
• It ensures that the verdict is final
• It enables jurors to bring unpopular verdicts
• It prevents unreliable disclosures by jurors

Against Secrecy and For Disclosure:

• Makes jurors more accountable
• Makes it easier to inquire into the reliability of convictions and rectify injustices
• Show where reform is needed
• Educate the public
• Ensure each juror's freedom of expression

Contempt of Court Act (1981)

• Section 8 of the Act provides that it is an offence for a person to ask for or make public any opinions or arguments put forward by a jury member in the course of making a decision

R v Mirza (2004) and R v Connor

• The defendants sought an inquiry as to events in the jury rooms on their trials. They said that the secrecy of a jury's deliberations did not fit the human right to a fair trial.
• In one case it was said that jurors believed that the defendant's use of an interpreter was a mere ploy. In the other, a juror reported that other jurors had refused to consider the evidence properly
• It was held that the common law should not be extended to permit enquiries into events in the jury room where they are not now permitted

Att Gen v Scotcher (2005)

• It was decided that although a juror would not be in contempt of court in terms of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, if he disclosed the jury's deliberations to the court with the genuine intention of preventing a miscarriage of justice, he would be in contempt where he had made such disclosure to a third party who had no authority to receive disclosures on behalf of the court and who might or might not pass on that information to the court

Criminal Justice Act 1967 (the actual law)

• Majority verdicts of juries in criminal proceeding:
• Subject to the following provisions of this section, the verdict of a jury in criminal proceedings need not be unanimous if:
• In a case where there are not less than 11 jurors, 10 of them agree on a verdict and;
• In a case where there are 10 jurors, 9 of them agree on the verdict
• A court shall not accept a majority verdict of guilty unless the foreman of the jury has stated in open court the number of jurors who dissented from the verdict
• A court shall not accept a majority verdict unless the jury have had no less than two hours for deliberation or such longer period as the court thinks reasonable having regard to the nature and complexity of the case

Jury Equity:

• Jury equity is applied when a jury reaches a decision which is in contradiction to the law. While rare, a jury sometimes finds the defendant not guilty of a crime even though it is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt that he or she has violated a law. Usually, this happens when the jurors feel that the law itself is unjust or a punishment is unduly harsh. As a result, they hand down a not-guilty verdict

Advantages of the jury system

• Certainty, as the verdict is not open to dispute
• Public participation - Lord Denning said jury duty was 'giving ordinary folk their finest lesson in leadership'
• Jury equity:

R v Kronlid (1996)

• Three women broke onto a plane and caused £1.5 million worth of damage. They left a video explaining that they did it to stop the plane being used to harm people
• The jury found them not guilty because they believed that the women did it for the right reasons, using jury equity to do this

R v Ponting (1985)

• Clive Ponting sent confidential documents about the sinking of a ship to a labour backbencher. He had committed this crime, but the jury found him not guilty as they believed that his prosecution was politically inspired (once again a case of jury equity)

Disadvantages of the Jury System

• Lack of competence
• 'Perverse verdicts'
• Bias
• Manipulation by defendants
• Jury nobbling/tampering
• No reason given for the decision/verdict
• Distress to jury members
• Cost and time
• Problems with compulsory jury service
• Excessive damages in civil cases
• Jury equity:

R v Owen (1991)

• The defendant's son had been killed by a driver with no licence. When the driver was released from prison he continued to drive without a licence and so the defendant, enraged by this, wounded the driver with a shotgun. The defendant was found not guilty by the jury as they shared his anger. This is yet another case involving jury equity. Some could say it highlights a disadvantage of a jury system as juries are able to create 'perverse' decisions

Reform of the Jury

• Abolishing juries in serious fraud cases
• Abolishing juries
• Juries to write down how they reached their verdict
• 13th person (qualified) to enter the jury room to advise
• Defence and Prosecution prepare a written summary of the case for the jury