English Legal System The Jury System

1. English Legal SystemThe Jury System

2. Ineligible The following are Ineligible: 1) suffering from mental disorders 2) The judiciary and others concerned with the administration of justice 3) The clergy (but see the Criminal Justice Bill 2002)

3. Disqualified The following are disqualified: 1) Persons with certain criminal convictions. 2) Those currently on bail in criminal proceedings

4. Role of the Jury It is the function of the Jury to decide on matters of fact. The judge only decides matters of law. But note: that the Jury in fact decides whether a person is guilty on the basis of their understanding of the law as explained to them by the judge.

5. Oath taken by juror The oath taken by each juror states that they will “ faithfully try the defendant and give a true verdict according to evidence”. It’s a contempt of court if the jurors fail to come to a verdict

6. Failure to come to a verdict In 1997 Judge Anura Cooray sentenced two women jurors to 30 days in prison, for contempt of court for their failure to deliver a verdict One of the women who had been the jury foreman, claimed that the case, involving allegation of fraud had been too complicated. The other claimed that she could not ethically come to a decision.

7. Judges power to direct juries DPP V Stonehouse (1978) Judges have the power to direct juries to acquit the accused where there is insufficient evidence to convict them. This is the main safeguard against juries finding defendants guilty in spite of either the absence or insufficiency of evidence. But there is no corresponding powers for the judge to direct the jury to convict.

8. Judges power to direct juries R V Mckenna (1960) Judges could end up putting “pressure” on juries to reach a guilty verdict by the way they direct and sum up the jury. If this done, it is cause for a retrial. Facts : Jury asked to come out with a decision within 10mins after about 2 hours of delibiration.

9. Juries powers Juries do not have to explain the reason for their decisions to a judge or anyone else. S8 Contempt of Court Act 1981 It’s a contempt of court to elicit this information from the Jury. (One of the weaknesses of the jury system)

10. Juries powers R V Clive Pointing (1985) The jury still passed a verdict of not guilty despite the judge making it clear beyond doubt that the defendant was guilty of the Official Secrets Act 1911 Weakness of the jury system. The fact that they don’t have to explain their judgment

11. Juries powers Pat Pottle and Michael Randall The accused admitted their guilt in participating in the open escape of the spy George blake, the jury returned a not guilty verdict, in open defiance of the law.

12. Juries perverse decisions R v Kronlid (1996) Facts : three protestors caused criminal damage to aircrafts that were to be sent to Indonesia for the use “in genocidal campaign”. The jury acquitted the three although the three did not deny causing the criminal damage.

13. Jury ignoring legal formalities Even in non political cases, Juries do ignore legal formalities (not taking into account the law, facts and evidence). In Sep 2000, Stephen Owen was charged with an offence after he had shot at the driver of a lorry that had killed his child. The jury refused to find him guilty.

14. Juries fear to try Jury trials can put the jury through harrowing experience. In 2003, two illegal immigrants, Baghad Meziane and Brahim Benmerzouga, were convicted of various offences under the terrorism Act 2000. They had raised large amounts of money for AlQaida. Many of the jurors feared reprisals and were unwilling to sit in the jury.

15. Appeal from the jury decision It is an absolute rule that there should not be an appeal from the juries decision, to acquit the accused. S36 Criminal Justice Act 1972 Appeal on points of law allowed In civil cases juries decision can be overturned if decision was “perverse”

16. Majority verdicts Criminal Justice Act 1967 A majority decision is sufficient,.. if not less then 11 jurors and 10 agree 10 jurors and nine agree. Before this act it required an unanimous decision.

17. Discharge of jurors The trial judge may discharge the whole jury if certain irregularities occur. E.g. if the accused previous convictions were mentioned in open court Such a disclosure would be prejudicial to the accused

18. Role of the Jury Criminal Cases : The Jury decide if the defendant is guilty or not. In civil cases the Jury decide if the claimant has proved their case and the amount of damages to award.(compensation) Only for Defamation, Malicious prosecution, false imprisonment and fraud.

19. Procedure to selectRandom nature Officer of the court summons a randomly selected number of qualified individuals from the electoral register from that group, panels of potential jurors for various cases are drawn up the actual jurors are then randomly selected by means of a ballot in open court

20. Excused as of right The following are excused as of right: 1) anyone aged 65-70 years old 2) anyone who did jury service in the last 2 years 3) Members of parliament 4) Medical profession 5) armed forces members 6) Practicing members of a religious society

21. Discretionary power to excuse Practice Note 1988 The court can excuse the jurors on the following grounds. A) personal involvement in case b) close connection with a party or witness c) personal hardship d) conscientious objection to jury service

22. Jury vetting The jury may be vet/checked by the following methods : 1) Checking of criminal records for convictions R v Mason (1980) 2) Checking of special branch and security services records in cases involving national security and terrorist cases. Attorney General Guidelines in practice note (1988)

23. Challenging the array The defendant has the right to challenge the whole jury on the basis that it has been chosen in an unrepresentative or biased way

24. Challenging for cause The defendant and prosecution have the right to challenge all or individual jurors on the following grounds : 1) juror is not qualified to serve 2) juror is biased 3) juror may reasonably be suspected of bias The issue is then tried by the judge

25. Challenging for cause The Angry Brigade case (1972) The times 1972 Facts : a group of people was charged with carrying out a bombing campaign against prominent members of the conservative government. In the process of empanelling the Jury, the Judge asked potential jurors to exclude themselves on a variety of socio-political grounds, including being active members of the conservative party. The Lord Chief Justice issued a practice directions in which he stated that potential jurors should not be excluded on account of 1) race, religion, politics or occupation

26. Challenging on issue of race R v Danvers(1982) Facts : The defence had sought to challenge the array on the basis that a black defendant could not have complete confidence in the impartiality of an all white Jury. Held : The court disallowed the challenge.

27. Challenging on issue of race R v Ford(1989) Facts: the trial judge refused to accept the defendant’s application for a racially mixed jury. The CA approved the decision : “fairness is achieved by the principle of random selection” and to insist on a racially balanced jury would be contrary to the principle”. R v Smith (2003) CA Reaffirmed the view that it had not been unfair for smith to be tried with a randomly picked jury.

28. Racial bias in juries The case of Kuldip Sander (1995) Facts : One of the jurors wrote a note to the judge, during the trial stating that one of the jurors had made racist jokes openly. The judge called all of them except the one who wrote and questioned them on their “impartiality” He then allowed the jury to sit through the case. The accused was found guilty. The appeal to the court of appeal was dismissed. The ECHR felt that it was contrary to Art 6(1) of the ECHR.

29. Right to “stand by” jurors The prosecution may also require any numbers of jurors to “standby by” .ie. Not to sit on the Jury unless there are sufficient members of the panel to make up a full jury. For the following reasons : 1) to remove a “manifestly unsuitable juror” 2)

30. Weakness of jury trial 1) Jury trials cost on an average $13,500 compared with only $2500 for a case tried by magistrates. 2) As jurors are selected from the electoral register, they may not be suitable to handle the complexities in some cases. 3) Juries have come out with “unjustifiable” decisions, despite clear evidence

31. Argument for jury trial 1) Historic right to a trial by jury- Public perception of fair and just 2) right be tried by a member of the public - a peer and equal 3) some members of the society have little confidence in the magistrate’s impartiality.

32. The Runciman Commission The royal commission on Criminal Justice (1999) made the following recommendations In parliament as Criminal Justice Bill 2002 : 1) S8 of the Contempt of Court should be repealed. 2) Electoral rolls should be comprehensive 3) Clergymen and members of religious body should be eligible 4) Jurors should affirm that they have no disqualifying convictions. 5) It should be possible to select at least 03 jurors from the ethnic minorities 6) P or D should be allowed to argue for the need for the 03 to be of the same ethnic minority as the accused. 7) Protect jurors from intimidation