Lay Justices form a panel with a qualified judge to hear appeals in the crown court and trained Justices that have been specially nominated hear criminal charges against offenders aged 10 to 17 in the Youth Court. These Magistrates must be under 65 and the panel must have a member representing both genders.
The fact that magistrates have no legal qualifications is not generally a problem, because over 90% of defendants plead guilty and most of the contested trials turn on issues of fact rather than law, such as conflicting evidence. There can even be advantages in using lay magistrates, in that they can make use of their local knowledge in a way that a professional judge cannot.
Part B)
Juries are used in different types of cases in different courts, such as Defamation cases in the High Court or looking into prison deaths in the Coroners Court, however this piece will be the evaluation of Juries being used in the Criminal Court.
The jury's role in a criminal trial is to act as judge of fact. Sometimes there is a direct conflict of evidence and the jury must then use their experience of human nature in deciding who to believe is right. In other cases, there are more complex issues of reasonableness to be resolved, and the jury's task would be more difficult.
A juror should have experience of life rather than on any specialized legal knowledge making it appropriate that it should be left to them, such as in R v Litchfield in 1998, when a ship foundered off the Cornish coast and three crewmembers were drowned. Having allegedly followed an unsafe course and relied too heavily on his engines even though he knew the fuel was contaminated the ship's master was tried for manslaughter. Affirming his conviction and sentence of 18 months' imprisonment, the Court of Appeal said it is up to the jury to decide whether negligence is gross negligence. They rejected an argument that since negligently endangering a ship is a statutory offence, it is nonsense to let the jury decide whether a defendant's behavior amounts to a crime: the question for the jury is whether it amounts to the crime of manslaughter.
The jury's verdict will be either guilty or not guilty and after a minimum of two hours' discussion, the judge may agree to accept a verdict reached by ten of the twelve jurors or nine if two of the original twelve have been discharged because of illness or some other cause. This was introduced to counter the threat of "nobbling", and although it is arguable that if two jurors favor acquittal then the prosecution has hardly proved their case "beyond reasonable doubt".
The judge may direct the jury to return a verdict of "not guilty” if the evidence is legally insufficient and in some circumstances he may direct a verdict of "guilty", but as a general rule the verdict is a matter for the jury alone and the judge cannot refuse to accept it even if it seems perverse. In Bushell's case 1670, the foreman of the jury was charged with trying Penn and Mead, being accused of disturbing the peace by their preaching. They refused to find the defendants guilty as instructed, in spite of being shut up without food or drink, and following their verdict the Recorder of London directed they be imprisoned for contempt. Vaughan CJ granted a writ of Habeas Corpus for their release; once the jury has given their verdict, the judge has no option but to accept it.
In section 17 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, if defendant pleads not guilty and the prosecutor proposes to offer no evidence, the court may order that a verdict
Of not guilty be recorded, or the jury to be directed return such a verdict. This was carried out in the R v Ferguson case in 1970 when the defendant was charged with driving after the consumption of excess alcohol. The defendant pled not guilty, but the facts were undisputed. There was an argument as to the validity of the procedure adopted. The Deputy Chairman ruled that the procedure was valid and directed the jury to return a verdict of guilty. The direction was upheld by the Court of Appeal.