• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

‘Trial by jury is outdated, expensive and ineffective in ensuring justice’ Analyse arguments for and against this statement in relation to the recent changes proposed and the relevant literature

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

'Trial by jury is outdated, expensive and ineffective in ensuring justice' Analyse arguments for and against this statement in relation to the recent changes proposed and the relevant literature Jury trials have become a contentious point within the English legal system since the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice, or the Runciman Commission, made its report in 1993 (James & Raine, 1993:40). The history of trial by jury can be traced back to the county assize courts and the county quarter sessions of the eighteenth century, where jury trial was used in addition to the presence of judiciary. They were there for the purpose of active participation - interrupting proceedings to ask questions and so on. Since the 1700's however, the jury have gradually become an 'audience' who, despite the entitlement to ask questions at any time, generally do not exercise the right (Emsley, 1997:75). The courts of the time were notoriously corrupt, and juries were a means of the public holding an element of control in the criminal justice system. Trial by jury has changed little in format since its introduction over two centuries ago. It is still a panel of twelve lay-persons, made up of those who are willing to sit on the jury. Under English law: '..the jury system gives ordinary persons a part to play in the administration of justice.' (Keenan, 1998:95). At present, 'ordinary persons' are those eligible under three separate Acts of Parliament - the Juries Act 1974, the Juries (Disqualification) Act 1984, and the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act (CJPOA) 1994 (Davies, Croall & Tyrer, 1998:209, Keenan, 1998:94, Sanders & Young, 2000:559). ...read more.

Middle

The cost for a case to go to the Crown Court in 1999 stood at around �8.600 (Harries, 1999:1 - See Appendix B). With around ninety thousand cases being tried by the Crown Courts annually, that is a substantial cost to the government (Harries, 1999:3). However, less than one percent of all criminal cases ever come before a jury, with ninety-five percent being dealt with by the Magistrates courts (Sanders & Young, 200:552). The Auld Review of the criminal justice system, which reported in September 2001, made recommendations that if implemented, would change the fundamental structure of the courts as we have them at present (Cavadino & Dignan, 2002:89). At present we have a two-tier court system, but under proposals made by Lord Justice Auld, that would be turned into a three-tier system. In his summary of his Review, Auld outlined his recommendations, which made suggestions which covered every aspect of the criminal justice system, excepting arrest and police procedure (Auld, 2001 - See Appendix C). In this review, instigated by the Lord Chancellor's Department, Auld proposed a new structure to the criminal courts, making it into a unified system with three courts in place of the current Magistrates and Crown (Auld, 2001:para4). This would see cases currently defined as TEW either being reduced to summary offences and being tried in the Magistrates Division, or remaining the same and being tried in the new District Division. Under this scheme, the workload and therefore the cost of trial at the Crown Division should be dramatically less than at present, with the judges at the District Division gearing cases with a maximum penalty of up to two years' custody (Auld, 2001:para4). ...read more.

Conclusion

There is another Mode of Trial Bill in consideration in Parliament at present - the previous two in 1999 and 2000 were thrown out by the House of Lords. (Cavadino & Dignan, 2002:116). These are proposing the changes to the criminal justice system as recommended by Auld, but it remains to be seen how well it will be received in the House of Lords this time. So, is trial by jury 'outdated, expensive and ineffective at ensuring justice'? Expensive it certainly is, as has already been made clear, but whether it is outdated is difficult to answer. The system has not been dramatically changed for a long time, but since the Auld Report was released, there have been many new recommendations made for modification to the present system. As with any system of justice, there is a need to maintain the confidence of the public in order for there to be a legitimacy of the system. Trial by jury cannot be said to be ineffective if it maintains that confidence, even if that is not the intended primary function. So, whilst it is probably a little outdated, it is in the process of an overhaul which will rectify the problem. Our criminal justice system has always been respected world-wide, and the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into British law by the implementation of the 1998 Human Rights Act (HRA) indicates there are no grave problems with our jury system. This is because we are not required by the HRA to amend our criminal justice system in any way, because we are adhering to Article Eight of the ECHR - a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal (Sanders & Young, 2000:566). ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Machinery of Justice section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Here's what a teacher thought of this essay

4 star(s)

A good essay that considers the main issues well.

4 stars,

To bring this up to date, the student could make reference to the Coalition's

Marked by teacher Edward Smith 09/07/2013

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Machinery of Justice essays

  1. Critically analyse the relationship between law and justice.

    Utilitarianism is the theory that society should work towards the greatest happiness for the greatest number, regardless of whether some individuals lose out or not. A Utilitarian would assess whether a law was just or not by finding the consequences of the law, and deciding if said law maximised happiness, well-being, or any other desirable effect for the majority.

  2. International Institutions and Human Rights. The three international institutions and their impact on ...

    The aim of NATO is to ensure that its member countries don't fight each other, and that instead they use their forces to work together for world peace. The impacts the NATO has on the UK public services are: political and military force; peace-keeping and policing roles and security issues at world summit.

  1. 'Juries are anti-democratic, irrational and haphazard.' To what extent do you think that this ...

    A jury member is there to listen to the evidence that is put in front of them and decide whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty. Juries take part in criminal cases in the Crown Court and sometimes in civil cases in the County Court and High Court.

  2. Free essay

    Law and Justice

    This led to undeserved suffering, as justice was not reached. Concrete justice also means there is no room to consider the motives or background to the offence and so injustice is easily reached. Another theory is that of John Rawls' and his idea is based around an imaginary society.

  1. Free essay

    Critically discuss whether the criminal courts of England and Wales require substantial reform. Firstly ...

    For example, stealing something as stated in the Theft Act 1968. Also if the conduct can be defined as a criminal conduct in common law then it is criminal conduct, e.g. murder is a common law. So in conclusion when talking about the nature of a crime; it basically means

  2. Demonstrate your understanding of both the UK civil and criminal court systems and their ...

    The main purpose of criminal law is to give the state the power to protect the public from harm by punishing individuals whose actions threaten the social order of things. One aspect of criminal law is strict liability; the actual offense of breaking the law.

  1. Law and Justice Essay

    Rawls said that the only way to achieve true justice is if we create an 'original position'. His point being that the people who make the laws have their own agenda, so you can't achieve true justice. Robert Nozick thought that if you get wealthy legally and fairly then it should be yours to keep.

  2. Explain the requirements of lawful arrest and detention

    Detention Legal Advice You as a detained person have the right for a free legal advice from duty solicitor. The request will be sent to the Defence Solicitor Call Centre and it will be analyse into serous and non-serious. Non-serious crime will be passing on to Criminal Defence Services Direct.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work