Describe both the qualifications required for juries and the procedure for selecting a jury.
Describe both the qualifications required for juries and the procedure for selecting a jury? The basic qualifications required for jury service are laid down in the Jury's Act 1974. People are chosen from an electoral register at random by a computer. To qualify for jury service a person must be aged between 18 and 70. They must also have been a resident in the UK for at least 5 years since their 13th birthday. The person must be a British citizen. Everyone must take part of a jury service unless disqualified or excused. People with certain criminal convictions cannot sit such as; those who have been sentenced to life imprisonment or a custodial sentence of 5 years or more, those who have served a custodial sentence for public protection or have been given an extended sentence, those who are currently on bail. Those who cannot sit are also the mentally disordered persons. A judge can discharge any person from being a juror if they do not have the capacity to cope with the trial such as not being able to understand English or being blind or deaf. The Juries Act 1974 was amended by the Criminal Justice Act 2003 allows categories of people which used to be excluded able to serve on a jury. This included members of the judiciary and people involved in the administration or justice or the armed forces, the medical professions and MPs. Under the discretionary excusals, people
Briefly outline the various sentencing options available to the courts for both over and under 21s.
Briefly outline the various sentencing options available to the courts for both over and under 21s. The sentencing options available to courts are based on a number of factors. Firstly, sentencing in the UK commensurate to the crime committed. Second, the severity of sentences available will depend on the authority of the law 'awarding' the sentences. Thirdly, the overarching principles of sentencing under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA 2003) must be observed. Lastly, sentencing options available to the courts are dependent on the age of the defaulter, which will be the dividing criteria of the essay. Sentencing based on proportionality of the crime committed is an important characteristic of the English legal system. There exist both mitigating and aggravating factors which may reduce or make the sentence harsher respectively. Examples of mitigating factors on the part of the offender would be remorse in court, previous good character, provocation, leniency of the victim and pleading guilty while examples of aggravating factors include racially motivated crimes, vulnerability of the victim, previous convictions and the crimes general effect on the victim and society. Different bodies of the law are given different levels of mandate in which to sentence offenders. The most noticeable difference would lie between the severity of sentences awardable by magistrates' courts
‘Trial by jury is outdated, expensive and ineffective in ensuring justice’ Analyse arguments for and against this statement in relation to the recent changes proposed and the relevant literature
'Trial by jury is outdated, expensive and ineffective in ensuring justice' Analyse arguments for and against this statement in relation to the recent changes proposed and the relevant literature Jury trials have become a contentious point within the English legal system since the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice, or the Runciman Commission, made its report in 1993 (James & Raine, 1993:40). The history of trial by jury can be traced back to the county assize courts and the county quarter sessions of the eighteenth century, where jury trial was used in addition to the presence of judiciary. They were there for the purpose of active participation - interrupting proceedings to ask questions and so on. Since the 1700's however, the jury have gradually become an 'audience' who, despite the entitlement to ask questions at any time, generally do not exercise the right (Emsley, 1997:75). The courts of the time were notoriously corrupt, and juries were a means of the public holding an element of control in the criminal justice system. Trial by jury has changed little in format since its introduction over two centuries ago. It is still a panel of twelve lay-persons, made up of those who are willing to sit on the jury. Under English law: '..the jury system gives ordinary persons a part to play in the administration of justice.' (Keenan, 1998:95). At present, 'ordinary persons'
Describing the Rules and Aids to Statute interpretation. Including Advantages and Disadvantages.
Briefly describe the aids to interpretation used by judges. There are two types of aids that judges can use to interpret statutes, these are Intrinsic and Extrinsic. Intrinsic Aids are connected to the wording and/or punctuation within the Act itself. If using the Intrinsic Aid to interpret an Act of Parliament they will either examine the statute as a whole or study the relevant parts to see if they can define the overall purpose of the legislation. They may find that an interpretation of a certain section of the legislation would lead to an absurd result when another section is also taken into account. All legislations have both a shortened title and a long title. With Intrinsic Aids, they need to look at both to help resolve doubt. The long title can be examined as part of the whole context. Said by Lord Simon in the case: The Black-Clawson 1975 the long title should be read as part of the context 'as the plainest of all the guides to the general objectives of a statute'. Furthermore, headings, side notes and punctuation are important as it may help the judges clarify some points of the whole Act. Preambles can also be important when considering the wording etc within an Act as they will generalise the mischief to be amended and the scope of it. Extrinsic Aids, on the other hand, deal with external matters, outside of the legislation, to help explain the meaning and
Explain and Comment on the role of the Criminal Cases Review Commission.
Explain and Comment on the role of the Criminal Cases Review Commission [20] June 2001 On 14 March 1991 the then Home Secretary announced the establishment of a Royal Commission on Criminal Justice to be chaired by Viscount Runciman of Doxford. The Royal Commission was charged with examining the effectiveness of the criminal justice system in securing the conviction of the guilty and the acquittal of the innocent. In making the announcement, the Home Secretary referred to such cases as the Birmingham Six and Judith Ward which had raised serious issues of concern to all, and the undermining of public confidence when the arrangements for criminal justice failed. It was felt that the Home Secretary was not sufficiently independent from the Government in order to review cases fairly. The Royal Commission's report was presented to Parliament in July 1993. It recommended the establishment of an independent body: * to consider suspected miscarriages of justice; * to arrange for their investigation where appropriate; and * to refer cases to the Court of Appeal where the investigation revealed matters that ought to be considered further by the courts. The Criminal Appeal Act 1995 was subsequently passed, enabling the establishment of the Criminal Cases Review Commission. The Criminal Cases Review Commission is an independent body (as opposed to what it was before
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is the name given to the process where parties in a dispute come to a compromise (or settle their dispute) without going to court.
Assignment 2.9 a)Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is the name given to the process where parties in a dispute come to a compromise (or settle their dispute) without going to court. The main reason people use ADR is to save the expense of using the courts and solicitors. There are four types of ADR mediation, negotiation, conciliation and arbitration. Negotiation is the simplest form of ADR. Where two people have a dispute they can negotiate a solution themselves. The advantages to the parties involved are that it is completely private and it's fast and cheap. This is where parties to a dispute cannot settle it themselves they may instruct solicitors who will negotiate on their behalf. Even when negotiation fails at these early stages of a dispute and court proceedings start, solicitors will usually continue to negotiate on their client's behalf. This results in many cases being settled out of court. Mediation is where a neutral person (the mediator) helps the parties to reach a compromise. The job of the mediator is to consult with each party and see how much common ground there is between them. S/he should act as a facilitator, taking offers between the parties. The mediator doesn't offer an opinion. Mediation is most suitable where there is some chance that the parties will co-operate. such a in family disputes. Mediation is not legally binding on the
