Although jury service is mandatory, there are few groups of people who are entitled to be excused. Also governed under section 1 of the Juries Act 1974 as amended by the Criminal Justice Act 1988, people between the ages of 65 and 69 may be excused as they may suffer from lack of concentration. Those who have completed jury service in the last two years may be excused as they have put something back into society. M.P’s, members of parliament, members of the armed forces and people of the medical profession may be excused as they are already providing a service to society and society may lose out if they are temporarily removed from their jobs, e.g. removal of a doctor from a hospital may cost lives. Anyone who has a physical disability to such extent that it would be difficult for them to participate in jury service may be excused. For understandable reasons, anyone whose religion forbids jury service (passing judgement on someone) may be excused.
Again, governed under section 1 of the Juries Act 1974 as amended by the Criminal Justice Act 1988, some people are ineligible for jury service altogether. For obvious reasons, people with mental disabilities are unable to participate. Judges, other people concerned with the administration of justice (police, legal professionals, magistrates etc) and members of the clergy are ineligible as they would dominate the other members of the jury and, certainly judges and those of the legal profession, would only think on a legal basis.
Governed by the Juries (Disqualification) Act 1984 and CRIMPO 1994, disqualification of jury service applies to certain people for certain periods of time. Any person who has served more than 5 years in custody is disqualified from jury service. Any person that has had a custodial sentence or suspended sentence or has served a community service order is banned for ten years. Any person who has been on probation in the last five years or anyone on bail is subject to 5 year and temporary bans respectively.
Ultimately the jury’s job is to decide on whether the defendant is guilty or not based on the facts presented to them from the prosecution and the defence. Prior to 1967 the verdict had to be unanimous. However, as quite often all 12 jury members failed to agree, retrials were required- these were (and still are) very expensive and, during the time between trials, jurors could be pressurised or bribed. In 1967 majority verdicts were introduced under the Criminal Justice Act. Majority verdicts apply in two situations. 1) After the jury has retired to the jury room for at least 2 hours and, 2) not less than 10 out of 11 or 12 jurors or 9 out of 10 jurors have agreed on the verdict. Any other majority and the jury are ‘hung’ and a retrial may be ordered as an only alternative to dropping charges.
Prior to a trial in the Crown Court, a panel of jurors (usually 15 or 16) are summoned to attend court, a duty which is an offence should they not attend. From the 15 or 16 jurors, 12 are chosen using a ballot in open court. These 12 jurors will then make up the jury for the duration of the trial. However, should a juror fall ill or die during the trial, and on the grounds that both the prosecution and defence agree, the trial may continue with a minimum of 10 jurors.
If a jury member may be looked upon as unsuitable following a vetting process then, based purely on appearance, the individual juror may be asked to ‘stand by for the crown’. This effectively means that the juror will not be used unless the whole panel of jurors are used up. However, only the prosecution can apply this although either side may still challenge an individual juror if a valid reason is given as to why the particular juror shouldn’t sit. The defence used to also be able to challenge up to 3 jurors without specifying a reason, however this was abolished by the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
The fact is that whatever the jury decide on, even if the decision contradicts all of the facts presented before them, no one is able to overturn their verdict. This rule was first established in Bushell’s Case 1670; probably one of the most important developments in common law history of the jury. A recent case in which this rule was applied was R v Ponting 1985. Ponting was prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act, claiming that what he disclosed was in the nations interest. Much to the dismay of the government, the jury acquitted him and, because of Bushell’s Case 1670, they were unable to overturn the decision.
One area of the jury system that is totally sacrosanct is that of the jury room. Absolutely nothing that happens in this room is discussed outside of the jury room. Once the jury have retired to make their decision, they are locked in a room that is usually soundproof- to prevent them being tampered with or pressurised. Juries used to have to stay in a group in long trials, basically isolating them from society, however this is only a possible requirement in highly sensitive cases. Such is the secrecy of the jury room it is possible, in theory, to get away with murder as nothing that happens inside the jury room can ever be discussed outside of it. Also, one jury member may pronounce that the jury has reached a decision when indeed it hasn’t. However this decision may not be challenged as it occurred in the jury room and therefore it is confidential. The scenario that I have just stated did indeed occur in the case Ellis v Deheer. Jurors, who do not adhere to the secrecy of the jury room and the fact that details of the case may not be disclosed after the trial, may be prosecuted under the Contempt of Court Act 1981.
Very rarely, juries are used in civil cases, though under the Supreme Court Act 1981 any civil court has the discretion to use a jury provided one of the parties applies. Civil juries are occasionally used in cases of false imprisonment, malicious prosecution and malicious falsehood. However, they are used in cases of defamation. In these cases, the jurors have to decide if a person was defamed and they also have to decide on the amount of damages to be awarded. This often causes great problems as the juries award obscene amounts of damages such as in the Jeffery Archer Case when the author was awarded an astonishing £500,000 damages.
The system of trial by jury has been successfully used in society for hundreds of years. Anything that has remained in such constant use over such a long period of time must be deemed to be worthwhile keeping. Although various alternatives have been suggested to the jury system, no one has been able to fathom a superior way to decide on the defendant’s fate. It has to be said that the system of trial by jury is used to the advantage of the public and, until any other superior alternative is introduced, it will continue to be an asset to society.
