Those with certain criminal convictions, and those currently on bail in criminal proceedings are automatically disqualified for jury service for 10 years, for example, people that have served any part of a sentence of imprisonment. Certain individuals are disqualified for life, say if they have served life imprisonment or to a term longer than five years.
There are people that are excused of jury service have to either be aged 65-70 years old, a member of Parliament, in the armed forces, have done jury service in the last two years, or are practising members of a religious society. Before the Criminal Justice Act 2003 people such as medical professionals, judges and police officers were exempt from jury duty.
Certain individuals can gain discretional excusal if they have a very good reason. For example, being a full time member of her Majesty’s Service, such as the armed forces. They can also be excused by the judge for lack of capacity because of physical disability, for example deafness or inadequate comprehension of the English language. Almost everyone will have to perform jury service until the Lord Chancellor issues Guidance, which states 7 major points on how and why people can be excused from jury service.
The method of selection has changed in the last few years. The old method involved sending out notices and questioning the possible jury so that they could be selected. On September the 4th 2000 juries began to be selected by computer. This was done to make jury service more attractive and stop thousands of people a year evading jury service. The computer selects jurors from electoral rolls, issues summonses and liases with courts on the number of jurors needed. This improved the lot of the juror by eliminating time spent hanging around waiting for trials and sometimes to be never called at all. It also centralised all requests to be excused jury service so that they are treated confidentially and fairly.
The selection of juries can be challenged, by either challenging the array or challenging the course, i.e. if the defendant believes the jury is bias.
B, Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of using a jury to hear a criminal trial
There are a great number of advantages and disadvantages of using a jury to hear a criminal trial. Jury equity is one of these advantages as cases can be decided on their idea of fairness, eg R v Ponting (1984), where a civil servant leaked info to a MP on the ground of public interest; jury refused to convict despite no legal defence. However, perverse decisions can be made which is not justified. Have refused to convict in clear cut cases eg R v Randle and Pottle (1991) where D’s wrote a book, 25 years later, about their crime: helping a spy to escape from prison.
The open system of justice makes the legal system more open because members of public involved and the whole process in public. On the other hand the juries weigh up the information given in private and no one can inquire into what happened in the jury room. The juries do not have to give reasons and the judges give a judgment, which can be challenged.
An advantage is that the law is made clearer by involving the public, which also produces public confidence in the jury system. This method of involving the public is a tried and tested system since the Magna Carta 1215 and so is considered to be a successful system.
The jury are protected from pressure and outside influences when deciding on the verdict, but there is no way of knowing if jury understood case and came to decision for right reasons, eg R v Young (1993), the ouija board case.
It is reasonably fair to use juries because the jury are randomly selected and they represent a cross-section of society, without being case hardened. However, despite representing different cultures within society, certain individuals may be prejudice or biased. For example, against the police or racially prejudiced. Such as in the case ofR v Gregory (1993), where a juror showed racial overtones.
Media coverage may influence jurors, eg R v Taylor (1993) – newspapers gave false impression of video sequence, and in addition to this, the more recent trial such as the Ian Huntley case.
Jurors may not understand the case that they are trying. The Runciman Commission (1992) informed us that just under 10% of jurors admitted difficulty with a case. The juries usually have no legal knowledge or training. A disadvantage linked to this is that there is no intelligence test required. A person may not have to be “intellectual” to be on a jury, but surely a certain amount of intelligence is required for understanding of trials.
Other disadvantages include the jury having a financial interest in the length of trials, that “nobbling” may occur, whereby the jury are bribed or threatened, and finally that it is a slow and expensive process, with 12 people needing expenses during the time the trial is on.
