“The lamp that shows freedom lives”… in other words, the symbolic function of the jury surpasses its practical significance.
Jury selection is seen to provide fairness and independence. Jurors are selected at random from the area local to the Crown Court. The random nature of the selection helps to guard against the risk of a jury panel being skewed in favour of one of the parties and to guard against the perception of this risk. Juries should therefore compromise a representative sample of the whole population. Also, while the judiciary are themselves independent of the executive, the presence of members of the public on the fact-finding panel may give further reassurance that the defendant’s guilt or innocence is not being determined by the state. It creates a sense of openness and reinforces public involvement in the justice system, which is a sign of a healthy democratic society. This is clearly important with regards public confidence and independence. Who better to judge the essential issues of criminal trials than those with similar backgrounds to the defendants and to have had experiences which are sufficiently close to that of the defendant to enable them to take a view on a person’s possible responses in those circumstances. Lord Denning described jury service as giving ‘ordinary folk their finest lesson in citizenship’. This has particular resonance when one considers the background of magistrates, which continues to be largely white and middle-class. This point however valid is for some, a bitter pill to swallow. Jury selection is seen to be biased and unrepresentative of the whole community. The gender and racial balance of juries has also caused some problems. The Runciman Commission of 1998 stated that three members of the jury must be of ethnic minority. Since Baldwin and Mc Convilles research this balance of juries seems to have improved. This factor however remains an issue. In addition, although under duty, people do not undertake their job as a juror. Jury duty is as popular as paying taxes.
The jury system is inherently flawed. Aside from the selection process, it still remains far from ideal. In 1983, concerns about the handling of large and complex cases was put forward in the Roskill Committee. The view that randomly chosen members of the public are the best judges of the facts may vary on the nature of the offence. In serious fraud trials it may be argued that analytical skills are relatively more important than in most other trials and that the average juror’s ability to assess credibility and honesty in the complicated world of commercial transactions is reduced. Although willing to perform their ‘ civic duty’, some may lack the education that would enable them to follow a complicated argument or form a coherent opinion. These jurors may simply follow the majority when it comes time to vote on a verdict. A succession of high profile criminal trials in recent years has served to highlight the continuing difficulties, which appear to be created by trial by jury in large and complex cases. In addition, when these cases have produced a conviction, the outcome has on occasion been quashed on appeal either because it is unmanageable or there is a significant risk of miscarriage of justice. In R v. Jones, the trial judge discharged the jury from returning verdicts once the prosecution case had been presented on the grounds that the jury would not be able to recall the vital features of the evidence by the time they would be asked to refine. This assertion is however hard to substantiate from evidence, not least because research into jury room deliberations is not permitted. Little direct information can therefore be produced on how confusing or otherwise jurors on complex cases find the evidence presented to them. Despite this lack of supporting evidence however, there is no doubt that at least some trials do involve very complex issues. A key consideration is whether it is necessary to have a detailed understanding of complicated procedures in order to assess if a person’s acted dishonestly. It is in this light however, that the practicality of jury service can be seen to be more important than its symbolic function. It is not the light of freedom that is of importance. What matters is its practical significance.
Juries verdicts have been called ‘perverse’ in the past. Juries refused to convict MS sufferers who use cannabis to ease their pain. Madness? It seems that in a case such as this the jury would be better equipped to judge. Possibly more understands, on the same wavelength so to speak. As opposed to a white middle-class judge who may be of the notion that cannabis is still an illegal substance and so should not be administered under any circumstances. They have also acquitted peace campaigners in the Trident ploughshares movement who disabled equipment related to Britain’s Trident nuclear force. Not all of these verdicts were perverse, since in some cases the judges allowed defenses based on international law related to nuclear weapons or of lawful excuse under the provisions of the Criminal Damage Act, to be put and left to the jury to decide on the merits. The weight of numbers helps to minimize the possible risks of prejudicial views influencing the decisions of the jury. The same thing can’t be said of the judges. Also, if the government is concerned at the relatively high acquittal rate in the Crown Court, when compared with the Magistrates Courts they should bear in mind the fact that roughly half the acquittals are ordered by the judge.
There is much deliberation as to whether or not juries are pragmatic in their evaluations and decision making. Also, doubts have been cast with regards the jury’s historical symbolism. Issues such as jury vetting, jury selection and miscarriages of justice have caused considerable concern within the legal system. It has come a long way since Lord Devlin’s assertion that it is ‘ the lamp that shows freedom lives’. Jury trial has however, stood the test of time and it is established as the method by which nearly all serious criminal cases are tried. “ What makes juries different is that they can see things differently from the judges, that they can water the law, and the function which they filled two centuries ago as a corrective to the corruption and partiality of the judges requires essentially the same qualities as the function they perform today as an organ of the disestablishment” (Blackstone Lecture given by Lord Devlin) (The Times, Nov. 20th 1978).
It appears that the jury has maintained its importance in contemporary society. It is a vital instrument in the maintenance of our democracy. Public involvement in the justice system provides openness and it enriches our community. The issue of complex cases does however call into question its abilities and its importance. A solution to this problem however could be to have a separate decision making body for cases considered to be complex. There are constructive reforms that fall way short of restriction of the right to trial by jury e.g. October progress report expressed proposals to improve representation on jurors by making it more difficult for potential jurors to be excused. All in all, it appears that the jury system is a key figure in our society. Perhaps a fundamental overhaul of the jury system with regards people escaping duty and to ensure that they are more representatives of the population would not be out of the question. Independence! Openness! Public Involvement! How important are these features of jury trial considered to be in our criminal justice system? Either we want a democratic element maintained in our system or we don’t. Either we trust the judgement of twelve ordinary citizens or we don’t.
