Assignment question 1: The jury system and Assignment question 2: Advice TLC Ltd. as to any possible action they may have for misrepresentation against Answer Ltd.
Assignment question 1: The jury system
The jury has a very long history in the English legal system. During this long history it has completely changed its role, and has still not reached its final stage. There were always suggestions for improvement from the political as well as from the judicial sphere, and even the abolishment of the 'Bulwark of our liberties' (Lord Denning in Ward v. James [1966]) was claimed. The most recent proposals are to allow research of juries, and to deny jury trial in terrorism cases (this proposal was abandoned by the government as Labour didn't see any chance to change the legislation with a strongly reduced majority in the House of Commons). Through explaining the jury system and identifying its advantages and disadvantages, I will try to clarify why some people think the jury system needs to be modified.
A jury is 'a body of individuals selected and sworn to inquire into a question of fact and to give their verdict according to the evidence' (Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law 1996). It consists of laymen who have to fulfil certain requirements. In the Juries Act 1974, it is specified, that any person between the ages of 18 and 70, who is on the electoral register and who has lived in the UK for at least five years, is qualified to serve as a juror. However there are reasons for disqualifications and exemptions. Members of the legal profession, clergymen and people suffering from a mental disorder are deemed to be ineligible. The group selected from the electoral register is called panel. The panel is subjected to a system of examination, which is known as 'voir dire' and means 'speak the truth' (www.answers.com, 3/05/2005). Here the prosecution (or claimant in a civil case) as well as the defence can object a juror. In England these objections have to be very well based to be allowed, e.g. the defendant knowing a potential juror. Additionally to this examination the practice of jury vetting is used under exceptional circumstances. In terrorist cases or cases involving national security it is felt that a potential juror's political beliefs could be so biased as to `interfere with his fair assessment of the facts of the case or lead him to exert improper pressure on his fellow jurors`(Terence Ingman, The English Legal Process (2000)).
England and Wales have the same legal system and here juries consist of 12 laymen. In the past a unanimous verdict was required, but this has been changed. Recently, if the jury fails to agree after a given period, they may reach a verdict by a 10 to 2 majority. In Scotland juries consist of 15 people. There verdicts are reached by a simple majority, as there never was a requirement of unanimous verdicts.
Trial by jury is possible in criminal law as well as in civil law. As 98% of all criminal cases are held in the magistrates` courts, the jury is theoretically used in only 2% of the cases (in praxis even less as 60% of defendants plead guilty). In civil law the use of juries is also not that common. If a case `requires any prolonged examination of documents or accounts or any scientific or local investigation, which cannot be made with a jury´ (Terence Ingman, The English Legal Process(2000)) jury trial can be denied. In all the other cases it is at the discretion of the judge to allow a trial by jury. In Ward v James (1966) the guidelines for the proper exercise of this discretion were laid down. Trial by judge alone should be the usual mode of trial, except where statute provided otherwise, or where a judge decided that the exceptional circumstances warranted it. The decline in the use of jury in the High Court can be accounted for two reasons: one is the inconsistency in the award of damages, and the other is the unreasonable figures for damages which sometimes resulted.
The jury has a very long history in the English legal system. During this long history it has completely changed its role, and has still not reached its final stage. There were always suggestions for improvement from the political as well as from the judicial sphere, and even the abolishment of the 'Bulwark of our liberties' (Lord Denning in Ward v. James [1966]) was claimed. The most recent proposals are to allow research of juries, and to deny jury trial in terrorism cases (this proposal was abandoned by the government as Labour didn't see any chance to change the legislation with a strongly reduced majority in the House of Commons). Through explaining the jury system and identifying its advantages and disadvantages, I will try to clarify why some people think the jury system needs to be modified.
A jury is 'a body of individuals selected and sworn to inquire into a question of fact and to give their verdict according to the evidence' (Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law 1996). It consists of laymen who have to fulfil certain requirements. In the Juries Act 1974, it is specified, that any person between the ages of 18 and 70, who is on the electoral register and who has lived in the UK for at least five years, is qualified to serve as a juror. However there are reasons for disqualifications and exemptions. Members of the legal profession, clergymen and people suffering from a mental disorder are deemed to be ineligible. The group selected from the electoral register is called panel. The panel is subjected to a system of examination, which is known as 'voir dire' and means 'speak the truth' (www.answers.com, 3/05/2005). Here the prosecution (or claimant in a civil case) as well as the defence can object a juror. In England these objections have to be very well based to be allowed, e.g. the defendant knowing a potential juror. Additionally to this examination the practice of jury vetting is used under exceptional circumstances. In terrorist cases or cases involving national security it is felt that a potential juror's political beliefs could be so biased as to `interfere with his fair assessment of the facts of the case or lead him to exert improper pressure on his fellow jurors`(Terence Ingman, The English Legal Process (2000)).
England and Wales have the same legal system and here juries consist of 12 laymen. In the past a unanimous verdict was required, but this has been changed. Recently, if the jury fails to agree after a given period, they may reach a verdict by a 10 to 2 majority. In Scotland juries consist of 15 people. There verdicts are reached by a simple majority, as there never was a requirement of unanimous verdicts.
Trial by jury is possible in criminal law as well as in civil law. As 98% of all criminal cases are held in the magistrates` courts, the jury is theoretically used in only 2% of the cases (in praxis even less as 60% of defendants plead guilty). In civil law the use of juries is also not that common. If a case `requires any prolonged examination of documents or accounts or any scientific or local investigation, which cannot be made with a jury´ (Terence Ingman, The English Legal Process(2000)) jury trial can be denied. In all the other cases it is at the discretion of the judge to allow a trial by jury. In Ward v James (1966) the guidelines for the proper exercise of this discretion were laid down. Trial by judge alone should be the usual mode of trial, except where statute provided otherwise, or where a judge decided that the exceptional circumstances warranted it. The decline in the use of jury in the High Court can be accounted for two reasons: one is the inconsistency in the award of damages, and the other is the unreasonable figures for damages which sometimes resulted.
