1 / 12

Juries

Juries. AS Law. Are juries representative of society?. Employment could jeopardise ability to decide case impartially. R v Abdroikov (2007) Eligibility reforms by the CJA 2003 following the Auld’s review in 1999. R V Khan (2008).

felton
Download Presentation

Juries

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Juries AS Law

  2. Are juries representative of society? • Employment could jeopardise ability to decide case impartially. R v Abdroikov (2007) • Eligibility reforms by the CJA 2003 following the Auld’s review in 1999. R V Khan (2008). • Bias may not only come from those who work in the Criminal Justice System but also from those that may be victims. • Use of discretionary excusal means jury service is harder to get out of.

  3. Cont.. • Diversity and Fairness in the jury System (2007) showed that ethnic minority jurors are proportionate.

  4. ??? • Not everyone is on the electoral register. • Jury vetting R v Obellim (1996) • Legislation reducing the role of the jury Criminal Justice Act 2003 provides fo trial by judge alone where the case is complex (fraud) or where there is a serious risk of jury tampering R v Twomey (2009)

  5. Cont.. • No need for a racial balanced jury R v Ford (1989) and Sander v UK • Limits on random selection imposed by jury challenging – challenge for cause and stand by. • There have been criticisms that discretionary excusals are administered too freely.

  6. Reforms • Auld Review 2001 – recommended both prosecution and defence should prepare a written summary of their case to aid the jury in the jury room, this has NOT been implemented. • Videoing of jury deliberations • Allowing a 13th person to assist with the verdict.

  7. Alternatives to jury trial • R v Rayment and Others 2005 • Has led to much debate concerning the abolition of juries in serious fraud cases. • Single judge • A panel of 3/5 • Judge with lay experts

  8. Key points • Lord Devlin ‘the lamp that shows freedom lives’. • Michael Mansfield QC ‘the most democratic element of our judicial system. • What is perverse decision? • What is contempt of court?

  9. Homework • Look up recent research by Prof Cheryl Thomas, ‘Are Juries Fair?’ are Juries effective?

  10. Cases • R v Mason (1980) 3 jurors had criminal convictions. • R v Owen (1992) – perverse findings • Ponting’s Case (1985) – worked for Ministry of Defence, found documents that government had lied about the sinking of the ship in the Falklands war – D gave copies to an opposition MP. • Official Secrets Act.

  11. Cases • R v Randle and Pottle (1991) • Assisted a famous spy, George Blake escape prison and then wrote a book on the escape. • R v Andrews (1998) – D felt media prevented fair trial – judge did not allow this. • Sander v UK (2001) – conviction of fraud – racist jury. • R v Korakaya(2005) – Internet research • R v Alexander and Steen (2004) – Juror romantically propositioned the prosecution barrister.

  12. Cases • Grobbelaar (2002) - C, a famous goal keeper arranged to fix the results of football games, which was reported in The Sun newspaper so he sued for libel. • Jury tampering R v Mirza (2004) • Juries have to sit through disturbing cases R v West (1996)

More Related