Juries are used in all criminal cases at first instance in the Crown Court. They try the most serious indictable offences such as murder and also either way offences such as theft, both of which, where the defendants plead not guilty. Summary offences such as driving without a licence are heard in the Magistrates Courts, so in reality only 5% of criminal cases are tried in the Crown Court and in many of these cases defendants plead not guilty so there is no need for a jury.
The Juries Act 1974 as amended by the Criminal Justice Act 2003 states that potential jurors must be between 18 and 70, registered on the electoral register and a resident in the UK for at least 5 years since the age of 13. There are, however, some people who are disqualified from jury service, these include those who are currently on bail, people with previous criminal convictions who have served life or 5 years imprisonment or within the last 10 years had any prison or suspended prison sentence and those who are mentally ill. It is possible for a potential juror to request a discretionary excusal from the Jury Central Summoning Bureau (JCSB). This means if someone is unable to perform their jury service because of exceptional circumstances such as exams, hospital appointments etc. Then their services will be deferred to a more suitable time rather than being fully excused under the old rules. Jury service is compulsory and failure to attend or unfitness through alcohol or drugs is a criminal offence (contempt of court).
In civil cases the jury has a dual role of deciding whether the defendants is liable or not liable, as well as deciding the amount of damages owed. Although the use of juries nowadays is nearly obsolete compared to in the past, there are still four types of civil cases allowed to be tried by a jury, as outlined in the Supreme Court Act 1981. These cases are defamation, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution and fraud, all of which are heard in the Queens Bench Division of the High Court.
There are many problem associated with using juries in civil cases such as unpredictable and unrealistic damages, as seen in Rantzen v Mirror Group Newspapers, where the founder of Childline was awarded £250000 over allegations she had deliberately kept quiet about a child abuser.
Up until 1990 when the Services Act was introduced, the Court of Appeal had no power to correct awards which were thought too high, but since the act was introduced, are now allowed to either order a new trial or substitute the sum to how it would appear proper to the court if they believed the damages were excessive or inadequate. For the reason of unpredictable damages the use of juries in Personal Injury cases was stopped after Ward v James 1996. Another reason it was stopped is because some cases are believed to be too technical for a jury this was seen in the case of Singh v London Underground 1990.
Juries can also be found in groups of 7-11 members in the Coroners Courts. They try cases over suspicious deaths, for example deaths in police custody or in prison etc. As well as in cases of public interest, for example the death of Princess Diana or Jean Charles De Menez.
The role played by the jury in criminal and civil cases as well as in the Coroner Courts is inevitably a crucial one. They are “masters of fact” that come to a unanimous or majority decision when deciding guilt, liability and damages.