Political vetting came to light during the ‘ABC’ trial, where two journalists and a soldier were in court for breech of the official secrets act. Political vetting was being checked by the police and once they were discovered a re trial was immediately ordered.
The Attorney General (A.G.) is the person who decided when political vetting was allowed and his conclusions were; that it was only allowed in terrorist cases and national security issues. Any other case that wishes to have their jury politically vetted, must first gain the permission of the Attorney General. The role of the jury in a Crown Court is very important as they are the ones who have to decide whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty. During a Crown Court case, the jury must listen to the evidence very carefully making notes on the facts and evidence to help make their decision correct. When doing this they must apply the law to the given facts and not be persuaded by the barristers’ ethnicity or background. Whilst the barrister and the judge are discussing points of law the jury are dismissed so don’t have to spend all their time in the Court room.
Once the case has finished, the jury are sent to a private room in the chambers of the Court where the group elects a foreman. After this they have two hours to reach a verdict which has to be a unanimous decision, which the foreman will later announce in Court. During their two hours, the jury have to carefully review and discuss the facts of the case. However, if the jury are unable to agree on a decision unanimously the judge may accept a majority of ten to two or eleven to one. If the majority is less than this, the jury is given extra time to decide the final verdict – guilty or not guilty. Once the jury do come to a decision they don’t have to give their reason for their choice and then the sentencing is left to the judge.
Juries are only needed in cases where the defendant pleads ‘not guilty’ so their role is extremely important as their decision will affect the defendants for the rest of their life.
- Consider whether jury trials should be abolished.
Many people have their own views on jury trials and whether they are good or should be abolished.
Some people like to argue that some cases are too complicated for the jury to understand, and that many jurors don’t understand the correct court procedures. An example of this could be in the R v Young case, in this case the jury attempted to contact the dead using an Ouija board as they could not come to a decision. In this case it shows that the jury perhaps weren’t acting in the correct manor for a Crown Court case. Many people also argue that jurors are too easily persuaded and can be bought over by simple factors such as the language, vocabulary and tone the barristers’ use which may stop them from concentrating on all the facts right. It is also argued that some members of the general public do not have very long attention spans so do not take it very seriously. In one case, write about in the Daily Mail, a woman in the jury was court filing her nails and reading a magazine during a case.
Jury cases, as well as being time consuming, are very expensive, and this leads to one of the strongest arguments of why they should be abolished. Recently, jury trials have become even more expensive due to the new Criminal Justice Act. This is because this rule allows every one to serve jury service which leads to more delays and therefore more expenses. This is because members of the judiciary who sit in the jury may know the barrister, judge or solicitor in the case so have to be continuously moved to different cases until they don’t know anybody. The introduction of this new act means that there is also more chance of the jury being influenced by other jury members – especially if there are any judiciary members on the bench. This may lead to the defendant not receiving a fair trial which is the reason behind jury trials.
Although there are many reasons why people wish to have jury trials abolished there are also many advantages to them.
Many people feel that a jury trial is fairer as the defendant is tried by twelve random individuals and this leads to minimal biases as it is more than one person’s opinion. The members of the jury, members of the general public, will also be able to relate to the defendant and their culture more and this leads to the defendant feeling he is being tried by his own peers making the whole court procedure more bearable.
From these reasons I can see why people want to abolish the jury trials, but equally why there are many people who want to keep the traditional style of Crown Court cases. In my view they should keep the jury trials as the main factor I feel is how the defendant feels during the whole case as they may be innocent and would much prefer to be tried by a jury containing members of the general public.
