On the other hand it is important to realise that even this one per cent amounts to 30,000 trials and that these are usually the most serious ones to come before the courts-though here too the picture can be misleading. Since some serious offences, such as assaulting a police officer or drink driving, are dealt with only by magistrates, while even the most trivial theft can be tried in the crown court if the defendant wishes.
In the past 30 years there have been several attempts to reduce the proportion of jury trials still further. The home secretary had stated a definite intention to remove a defendant’s right to choose, jury trial for an either way offence. In criminal cases, the jury decides if the defendant is guilty or not.
In the past most civil cases were tried by juries, but trial by jury in the civil system is now almost obsolete. The erosion of the use of juries in civil cases was very gradual and appears to have started in the middle of the nineteenth century. When judges were given right in certain situations to refuse to let a case be heard before a jury and insist that it be heard in front of a sole judge instead. Today the Supreme Court act 1981 gives a qualified right to jury trial of civil cases in four types of case libel and slander, malicious prosecuting, false imprisonment and fraud. In these cases jury trial is to be granted, unless the court is of the opinion that the trial requires any prolonged examination of documents or accounts or any scientific or local investigation which cannot conveniently be made with a jury
The right is exercised most frequently in defamation actions, although its use may be more limited now that the defamation act 1996 has introduced a new summary procedure for claims of less than 10,000 pounds which can be heard by a judge alone. In all other cases the night to jury trial is at the discretion of the court. In ward v James (1966) the court of appeal started that in personal injury cases (which constitute the majority of civil actions), trial should be by judge alone unless there were special considerations. In Singh v London underground (1990) an application for trial by jury of a personal injury claim arising from the king’s cross underground fire of November 1987 was refused on the ground that a case involving such wide issues and technical to pictures was unsuitable for a jury.
The Faulks committee on defamation 1975 rejected arguments for the complete abolition of juries in defamation cases, but recommend that in such cases the court should have the same discretion to order jury trial as it does in other civil cases. That the function of the jury should be limited to deciding issues of liability, leaving the assessment of damages to the judge.
Before 1972, only those who owned a home, which was over a prescribed rateable value, were eligible for jury service. The Morris committee in 1965 estimated that 78 per cent of the names on the electoral register did not qualify for jury service under these criteria and ninety five per cent of women were ineligible. This was either because they lived in rented accommodation or because they were wives or other relatives of the person in whose name own the property. The committee recommended that the right to do jury service should correspond with the right to vote. This reform was introduced by the Criminal Justice act 1972 and the relevant law can now be found in the juries’ act 1974. This act now provides that potential jury members must be aged 18 to 70 years, on the electoral register and resident in the UK, Channel Islands or Isle of Man for at least five years since the age 13.
Some criminal convictions will disqualify you from serving on a jury, the length of time of the time on the disqualification depending on the sentence given. The full list is given in box an on the section of a jury summons. In addition, the Criminal Justice and Public Order act 1994 has disqualified those on bail from sitting as jurors.
Those four categories for people are ineligible for jury service are people suffering from certain mental illnesses (see box b on jury summons). People whose occupations are concerned with the administration of justice or who have been so employed within the last 10 years, such as judges, court clerks, barristers, solicitors and police (see box c for full list on the jury summons). The clergy the Runciman Commisson saw no logical for the existence of this exception and recommended its abolition, but it still exists. The last group is people on bail in Criminal Justice and Public Order act 1994 following a recommendation made by the Runciman Commisson.
People who have duties that are considered more important than jury service may chose whether or not they wish to serve. These include MPs members of the House of Lords, member s of the armed forces and doctors and nurses (see box e for full list in jury summons). People over 65 can also be excused as
Right following an extension of law by s.42 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order act 1994. Practising members of a religious society or order whose beliefs are incompatible with jury service are excused from performing such service anyone who was has done jury service within the last two years.
There will also be other people who don’t want to do jury service and they have to explain their reasons in writing to the court. If they have sufficiently good reason, they will be excused from doing jury service on that occasion, but may have to do it in the future. Good reasons include being too ill to go to court, business appointments, having a holiday booked or even having an examination to take or child care problems, personal involvement with the facts of the case, or conscientious objection. Where appropriate, jury service may be deferred rather than excusal is called a discretionary excusal, since it is up to the court to decide whether that person should be excused or not. If a person is not excused he must attend court on the date given on the summons or risk being fined for failing to do so. The maximum fine for non-attendance is 1,000 pounds.
Where there is some doubt about a potential jurors capacity to serve because of deafness, language problems or infirmity, for example the judge will decide whether to discharge the person concerned. s. 41 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 provides that the judge can discharge a juror if, in his or her opinion, the person is incapable of acting effectively as a juror on account of a physical disability. Media attention was drawn to this issue in 1999 when a deaf person, Mr McWhinney was summoned for jury service and then subsequently prevented from sitting as a juror by a trial judge. Mr McWhinney wished to fulfil his role as a citizen by sitting on the jury and following the proceedings into sign language. On appeal the decision of the trial judge was approved because while their no practical reason why McWhinney could not serve on a jury, the law prevented more than 12 people retiring into the jury room to deliberate their decision. The signer would be one person too many.
Computer at a central summoning bureau now always selects jurors. Jurors are selected from computerised lists of the electoral registers for each area. The Bureau works with the courts to make sure the right number of jurors are summonsed. Once the names have been chosen those people are sent a jury summons telling them to the crown court on a certain date. The normal length of jury service is two weeks, though jurors are warned that some trial may lasts longer. More people than are needed are summonsed, as it is not known who is ineligible or excusable a right. If someone is within one of these categories he or she has to declare it. The Bureau has a direct link to police criminal records, so that all those who are disqualified can be fined up to 5,000 pounds for failing to declare that disqualification.
A jury is a group of men and women legally chosen to hear a case and to decide the facts from the evidence presented juries are used in civil and criminal cases trial by jury in civil cases is not common and is usually restricted to actions involving defamation, malicious prosecution, fraud and false imprisonment. Any party to one of these actions has the right to trial by jury. A jury will be ordered for other cases when the court considers it necessary, which it rarely does. A county court jury consists of eight jurors and s high court jury has 12.
In criminal cases, juries of 12 persons are used in all trials in the crown court. There are seven to 11 jurors in a coroner’s court. It is the duty of the judge to decide all matters of law, while the duty of the jury is to decide matters of fact.
Jury vetting consists of checking that the potential juror does not hold “extremist” views which some feel would make them unsuitable for hearing a case. It is done by checking police special branch and security service records and also checking whether a person has a criminal record is permissible in a much wider range of causes without special permission. The legality of vetting of was considered by the court of appeal in two cases during 1980. In R v Sheffield crown court, ex parte brownlow, the defendant’s were police officers, and the defence wanted the jury vetted for previous convictions. The prosecution opposed it, but the crown court judge ordered that vetting should take place, and the court of appeal upheld this decision. Lords Denning and Shaw, obiter dicta, vigorously condemned vetting in security and terrorist cases as unconstitutional (because it was not provided for in the juries act 1974), and an invasion of privacy.
In R v Mason (1980), a convicted burglar appealed on the ground that the jury had been vetted for previous convictions, a common practice in the particular court at the time. The court of Appeal decreed that vetting for previous convictions was necessary in order to ensure that disqualified persons could not serve. In such situations lord Lawbon described vetting as just common sense, though it should not be used to gain tactical advantage in minor cases.
As the 12 juror come into the jury box it is possible that some of them may be challenged by either the prosecution or the defence. This is only done if there is a reason why the juror should not sit on the jury foe example because they are disqualified or because they know the defendant. It is also possible to challenge the whole jury on the basis that it has not been selected properly, but such a challenge is very rare. The prosecution has one further right, the right to put a juror on stand by. This means that the juror’s name is put at the end of the list of available jurors and he or she will only become a juror in that particular trial if there are not 12 others. If there are not sufficient jurors to hear all the cases going on at the court, there is a special power to select anyone who is qualified to b a juror is called a talesman. It is very usual to use this power, but it was used in London at Middlesex Crown Court in January 1992 when about the half the jury panel failed to attend the court after a New Year holiday.
The Advantages from jury service are the following a verdict from a jury of ordinary lay persons appears to be more acceptable to the public than if it came from a single judge, ordinary lay people take part in the administration of law, there is an impression that not only has justice been done, it been seen to be done.
A jury is impartial and has no direct interest in the result. In R V Gough (1992), after the jury’s verdict of guilty, it was discovered that a juror knew a close relative of the defendant who appealed on the grounds that this constituted a serious irregularity in the conduct of the trial. The court of Appeal held that it would not interfere with a or (b) was likely to have been prejudiced. In this case the court considered that if there was any bias it was likely to be in favour of the defendant.
A jury will sometimes come to a verdict that is just rather than legally correct. In recent years juries, in cases with exceptional circumstances, have refused to follow the letter of the law and considered that only an acquittal would be a just verdict. Clive ponting was acquitted of a charge under the official secrets Act, although the judge. Informed the jury that the accused had no defence in law. In 1992, Stephen Owen shot a man who, by reckless driving, had killed his son. The jury acquitted Mr Owen, while it was almost certain that a judge sitting alone would have held him to be guilty. The juries in these cases must have considered that justice was best served with an acquittal.
Some jurors dislike doing jury service or become bored and may rush the decision. There is a risk that member’s of the jury will be bruited or threaded by the defendant’s friends. Majority verdicts were introduced in order to make this move difficult, as at least three jurors will have to be “nobbled” to the effect the decision.
The lower age limit of 18 is too young it could be said that a person of this age has not got enough experience of make such important decisions. Media coverage can cause jurors to form a biased view of the case. This occurred in a murder case involving 2 sisters in 1993. Some newspapers published a still picture from a video sequence that gave a false impression of what was happening. After the jury convicted the defendants, the trial gave leave to appeal because of the possible influence the media coverage might have had on the decision and the court of Appeal quashed the convictions.
