Juries

Question 1

What act outlines who is eligible for jury service?

Answer 1

S1 Juries Act 1974, amended by the Criminal Justice Act 2003

Question 2

Who did S1 Juries Act 1974 say was eligible for jury service?

Answer 2

People between 18-75 years old
Must also have been a UK resident for at least five years consecutively since 13th birthday
Be on the Electoral register

Question 3

Who is disqualified from jury service?

Answer 3

People with certain Criminal Convictions. Disqualification can be permanent or temporary. Permanent disqualification is for those with life sentences or who have served 5 or more years in prison. Temporary disqualification (10 years) is for those who have served below 5 years in prison or people on bail.

Question 4

Who is considered incapable of doing jury service?

Answer 4

People with:
Any mental disorder under the Mental Health Act 1983
Psychopathic disorder
Residents of an institution or hospital or attending a medical practitioner for treatment.

Question 5

What is an excusal?

Answer 5

When someone is unable to fulfil their role so are excused from being part of the jury. This does not include those who simply don’t want to do jury service. They must apply for a discretionary excusal, excusing them permanently.

Question 6

Who may be excused?

Answer 6

Disabled or ill people.

Question 7

What is a deferral?

Answer 7

When someone’s jury service is delayed for a specific reason.

Question 8

Why might someone be deferred?

Answer 8

Religious holidays
Exams
Work commitments
Childcare commitments
If the juror lacks the capacity to cope with the trial e.g. poor English

Question 9

What is the process for jury selection?

Answer 9

1. Names are selected from the Electoral register at random by a computer.
2. Summons are sent to those people whose names have been selected
3. Those summoned must notify the court if there is any reason why they cannot do jury service, there is a £1000 fine for non-attendance.
4. If summoned, you are expected to attend for a minimum of two weeks (10 working days) jury service, though if a trial is expected to last for longer, jurors will be asked if they can serve.

Question 10

What is vetting?

Answer 10

Checking that the jurors are suitable for the role.

Question 11

What are the 2 types of vetting?

Answer 11

1. Police Checks - Ensures no juror has a criminal record/background and should have been disqualified.
2. Wider Background Checks - Checks juror’s political affiliations - only allowed in serious cases (e.g. terrorist cases) in which their political beliefs may change their opinion.

Question 12

What are the 2 types of challenge the defence have against the jury?

Answer 12

Challenging the whole jury

Challenging an individual juror

Question 13

What is challenging the whole jury?

Answer 13

Known as challenge to the array. It can be done if the jury is unrepresentative or under representative of the D’s ethnicity. For example, R v Fraser.

Question 14

What is challenging an individual juror?

Answer 14

Known as challenge for cause. Done if the defence have a valid reason for the juror to not be a member of the jury. For example, R v Wilson and Sprason.

Question 15

What does it mean if a juror is asked to ‘stand by the crown’?

Answer 15

This is where the juror will be put at the bottom of the list and will only be used if there is no one else available.

Question 16

What is swearing in the jury?

Answer 16

When the court clerk will ask in juror to take either an oath (religious) or affirmation (not religious) before the case. This ensures that jurors will try D in accordance with evidence given.

Question 17

What are the concerns of having juries decide the verdict of cases?

Answer 17

1. It is very easy for jurors to research defendants or other relevant details in a case on the internet.
2. As jury deliberations take place in secret it is very easy for internet research to be shared with other jurors.

This is a problem as juries are meant to base there decision of evidence heard in court.

Question 18

How did the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 try and resolve the concerns?

Answer 18

• The trial judge has the power to order the jurors to hand in any electronic device before they go into the jury room to decide their verdict.
• The jury officer has the power to search a juror to check for any such devices.
• It is now a criminal offence to research a case on the internet.
• It is now a criminal offence for any juror to share any researched information with fellow jurors.

Question 19

What are the advantages of having juries?

Answer 19

1. Public Confidence - trial by peers - jury represents society - Law Society survey said 80% would trust a jury more than a judge or magistrate - suggest the system works.
2. Jury Equity - fairness - jurors can come to a verdict based on what they think is morally right - R v Owen - jury aquitted D after he attempted murder as he had already suffered enough (his son died) - Jurors can base decisions on their conscience, whereas a judge would have to apply the law.
3. Secrecy -
4. Impartiality / no personal bias - jury members cannot know anything about the D or case so will have no personal bias - R v Wilson and Sprason - the wife of a prison officer overseeing D was on the jury and may have been biased - decision is based on evidence heard in court

Question 20

What are the disadvantages of having juries?

Answer 20

1. Influence of modern technology - information is widely available on the internet - 12% of jurors admitted to researching the case on the internet, as in AG v Dallas - led to the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 - Would lead to D not being tried against evidence heard in court.
2. Perverse Decisions - Lack of understanding about the case - R v Owen - D was found not guilty as the jury felt he had already suffered enough - Defeats the points of the law if the jury base their decision on opinion - Denies D a right to a fair trial.
3. Secrecy
4. Risk of bias - Prejudice beliefs before jury service - Sander v UK - jurors were making racist remarks about the D which went against D’s right to a fair trial - justice is not achieved.