Majority verdicts have been allowed in Crown Court and High Court cases if a unanimous verdict is not reached after two hours. The Juries Act 1974, section seventeen allows for majority verdict to be used, normally eleven to one, ten to two, ten to one or nine to one. In open court the foreman must state the number of jurors agreeing with the verdict and the numbers disagreeing with the verdict.
Jury Vetting is used to check that jurors are suitable fro the case. Routine police checks are used to eliminate anyone who they feel is unsuitable or ineligible. In exceptional cases, usually terrorist cases, jury vetting is used on special branch and police records to ensure there is no background within similar cases. Although, it is seen as ruining and disrupting the randomness of the selection of jurors.
The defence has a right to challenge any jurors, giving reasons, such as a juror being related to the defendant. The prosecution also has the right to “stand by” any juror, meaning that the juror returns to the back of the queue, although this is very rarely used.
Juries are only used in about two percent of all cases heard within the United Kingdom every year. Jurors are selected to decide, based upon evidence if the defendant is guilty, or not guilty.
Outline The Main Advantages And Disadvantages Of Using A Jury, Should The System Remain As It Is At Present?
There are many advantages and disadvantages of using the jury system as it is at present, but many believe that an alternative to the jury system should be found. The main advantages are that the jurors are randomly selected from the electoral role, so the jury represents the whole of society, including people from every kind of walk of life, different races, ethnic origins and genders. No legal training is required to serve as a juror, so this should ensure that the verdict is based upon the evidence of the trial.
The use of the secrecy rule, where all jurors must swear not to mention anything that was said within the jury room, ensures that there is freedom of discussion and expression within the jury room. It also protects the jurors from any outside influences or contacts. It allows jurors to bring in unpopular verdicts based on evidence given, and ensures the finality of the verdict.
The twelve opinions of the jurors is often better that one, as people will notice different things about the case, and can so come to a fairer verdict. As members of the jury must swear to secrecy once returning from the jury room after deliberating the verdict, this ensures that no one is penalised for the final verdict.
Trial by jury should, in general, eliminates any individual biased decisions, such as racism against ethnic minorities and the opposite gender. Many jurors are aware that they are there to make justice, and so do not let any racist issues over rule their judgement of the evidence. They are also aware that justice must be seen to have been done for people to keep believe in the jury system.
The system of trial by jury is very traditional, and is seen by society to be a fair trial. Many people believe that they have a right to be tried by ones peers within a court of justice.
There are also many disadvantages to a trial by jury, perhaps more than the number of advantages.
Many people within the United Kingdom are uneducated or unintelligent, and so not competent to be on a jury, but are however on the electoral role, so it can be a lengthy process having to explain details, especially in complex cases such as fraud cases as the nature of such cases is highly complicated. The system of randomly selecting people is said to disrupt society as people are made to leave their jobs affecting many people such as students, families and companies.
The use of juries is far more expensive than in a Magistrates Court. Around £13,500 is used in a case involving trial by jury to cover the costs and expenses for the jurors, compared to around £1,500 in a Magistrates Court.
Often one or two very strong-minded jurors can sway the verdict by pressuring and dominating the other jurors, resulting in an unfair trial and verdict. Good barristers also easily sway jurors; often the performance by barristers is more important than the evidence portrayed within the case.
Juries often have sympathy for the accused, especially in disturbing cases, or any kinds of cases that a juror can relate to, so again, the jury may not come to a fair verdict based on evidence, but a verdict based upon their sympathy, or racial issues.
Many jurors, especially people who are self-employed are always very reluctant to do jury service, because of their loss of business and time will agree with any verdict just to make sure that the trial is quick to end. People who have also been serving as a juror for two weeks often get bored and easily distracted, especially when the case is closing, often referred to as ”Friday Afternoon Syndrome.”
Jury Nobbling can take place, where friends or colleagues of the defendant will interrogate and threaten the jurors to ensure a not guilty verdict. The television show Panorama investigated Jury Nobbling and found that it had occurred on a number of cases involving drugs and organised crime, although it is difficult to be aware of and know the actual extent of the situation.
When Margaret Thatcher introduced the Poll Tax in the 1980s almost 1.8 million people of the British population were not on the electoral role, and a large number still aren’t, so the system of randomness within the selection process is not always reached. As some people such as ethnic minorities may have trouble filling in the forms, they are under represented within juries. Many of the middle class are also under-represented amongst juries, due to excusals in people who are ineligible e.g. police, lawyers and doctors. This also means that more working and under-class people are called for jury service, who may not be as educated, and so have difficulty understanding the legal terminology, prolonging the trial. Due to excusals and ineligible people, many young un-employed people and retired people are over represented.
By using a jury and the secrecy rule, it is very hard to ensure that all of the jurors present have had freedom of expression, as there are often a few strong-minded jurors amongst a jury. If no secrecy rule was enforced it would be easier to enquire into the reliability of the verdicts and convictions, and to rectify injustices. It would also ensure that all members of the jury had spoken their own views.
As there are many advantages and disadvantages of the use of a jury within cases, there have been many suggestions of how to improve the situation, and make sure that all are given a correct verdict.
The greatest problem with using a jury is perhaps within fraud cases, and there have been a small number of ideas about how to rectify the situation. These include using a panel of experts, or a special jury, where people are selected from non-lawyers and are specially trained for the job to ensure that they are capable. This would decrease the amount of time spent explaining evidence and any legal terms. It would probably be easier to come to a quick verdict, as the jury would have been specially trained, and therefore be able to understand the situation and evidence better. This system however, also has its disadvantages. The jury, as it has been specially trained for the job, does not reflect society as well as the modern system does. The jury also may be more biased and unfair, and the system would lose the randomness of the modern system.
It has been suggested that by using one, three or five judges instead of a jury it would also make the process of cases shorter as the judges would already have knowledge of the legal system and in looking at evidence. It would however mean that all of the advantages of using a jury would be lost, including the randomness of selection and the varied views of society. There may also be problems in recruiting enough judges for the job. It would lessen the risk of having a few strong0-minded individuals
Within Northern Ireland, no juries are used, but a system called the Diplock Court. As the community is divided into two by religion, the Protestants and the Catholics, it would be unjust to have, for example, a catholic on trial against a jury of predominantly Protestants, as this would cause great conflict and unjust verdicts not based on the evidence, but on the defendant’s religion.
Although there are many disadvantages to the modern system of a trial by jury, it is believed to be a fair judgement by the general public, and although could use a few improvements, it is probably the most well structured and reliable system when compared to the new ideas that are being suggested. It has been seen to work for justice for centuries, and has many strong advantages and is preferred by many over replacing the jury.