In criminal juries, it is argued that they may take the standard of proof very seriously (beyond reasonable doubt) and lead to a higher amount of acquittals when tried by a jury. This is in accordance to statistics stating that in the Crown Court, 40% of people are acquitted, in contrast to 25% people acquitted in the magistrates court where there is no jury. This may fit in accordance with some peoples views that it is often better to let a guilty man go free, rather than force an innocent man to a term of imprisonment, but in a perfect ideal there would be no lenience for mistakes, which is why people who favour perfection may argue that a judge will understand a criminals mind better and provide the appropriate sentence rather than an uneducated jury who may make the wrong decision entirely.
With a criminal jury, the random selection often leads a jury with a fresh perspective without prejudice, where a judge who has been associated with the legal system for years may most often have some sort of recollection to a similar case, or similar circumstances and have a degree of prejudice. However, it is argued that owing to this, judges are more emotionally detached as it is their job and see similar circumstances everyday and eventually emotions will not affect them, when juries are usually overwhelmed with the emotional attachments to the case and may make their decision based from the circumstances, not the evidence provided.
In civil cases, juries are used to decide both the liability of the parties and the amount of damages that may be awarded. This leads to the problem that with such a varying background of individuals in the jury, there will be misconceptions to how much money is appropriate for the case, and there are extreme cases of over-awarding damages, or awarding too little damages in cases. This is subject to many external problems, such as the case may have received media attention, therefore members of the jury may already have perceived conceptions about one of the parties.
In a civil case, the Court of Appeal previously had no power to correct awards which they thought may have been too high or too low, which perhaps led to one cases in 1989 where Lord Aldington was awarded £1,500,000 – in relation to a personal injury case this size of award may only be capable to a person who had been severely and permanently disabled. In 1990, Parliament enacted section eight of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 which case the Court of Appeal special powers in such cases as over compensation, etc. This would allow the Court of Appeal to order a new trial or substitute a new sum which they deem as more appropriate to the factors involved.
This new power was first used in a case brought by the MP Teresa Gorman where the Court of Appeal reduced the damages awarded to her by the jury from £150,000 to £50,000. This new power is continued to be used quite frequently as it is very hard for each member of the jury to agree on the sum of money when they have such little factors to base it by. It also is a problem for civil juries as they don’t have to give a reason for the amount of damages awarded. When a judge is awarding, they will always give a judgement, and it is easier to see whether there are any decent grounds for an appeal.
To further the problems with civil juries, cost for each party holds a factor. A civil case is always expensive, and the use of a jury increases this as the case is most definitely likely to last longer. At the end of the civil case, the losing party will have to pay all the costs of the case which could amount of hundreds of thousands of pounds. Resulting of this, the Lord Chancellor has introduced new reforms so that defamation civil actions with a jury may be less costly. With the increase in County Court jurisdiction, parties can now agree to the case being transferred to the County Court where a jury of eight may be used and the trial is most likely to be less expensive a trial in the high court.
Also in the new reforms, parties may choose to have a trial by a single judge and no jury at all if both parties agree, which in turn should definitely save costs but also implicate all the previous arguments that juries are essential, such as for their unbiased fresh legal views.
In defamation cases, The Defamation Act 1996 now allows the claimant to seek a limited sum up to £10,000 in a quick less costly procedure dealt with by a judge. This allows those who want to clear their name and get immediate compensation at a lower cost to do so.
Disadvantages of a jury in a criminal case are that they may have troubles comprehending the legal complexities in a case. In some cases, juries may be too unmotivated to understand the case, and since they are not required to have their decision justified, may just vote with the majority in order to end the case and resume their normal lives.
Another problem with juries is that they also increase expenditure for the legal parties and take a lot more time than those in the Magistrates Court. Statistics suggest that an average of £14,000 is spent on a Crown Court trial, where a magistrate’s trial contested is just £2,500. However, variance is expected.
Perhaps a less observed problem with juries is that the jury service is compulsory and in some cases workers may lose out on opportunities in their normal life, and that attending jury service for them may be very costly. The expenses for undertaking the service will not provide an equivalent sum in most cases.
As juries are left to such complexities of the law, it is important that there is a balance that they will be able to understand the case and make a rational decision while not being thrown by the legal jargon. If each individual member of the jury works together and discusses the evidence fully, there should be no problem with jury trial.
