There are also some groups of people who are eligible to serve on a jury but who have the right to be excused from jury service. The right to be excused from jury services are anyone between 65-70, anyone who has served on a jury within the past two years, Members of parliament and those in the army forces. Also, People in essential professions as doctors, nurses, dentists, and chemists have the right to be excused. Practising members of a religions group whose beliefs are not compatible with jury service.
Anyone who has a problems which makes it very difficult for them to do jury service, may asked to be excused, for their period of service to be put back to a later date. The court has a discretion to grant such an excusal but will only do so if there is a satisfactorily reason. Excuses such as illness, disability, childcare and holidays. If a person is not excused from jury service they must attended on the set date, or they may be fined up to £1,00 for non-attendance.
At the Crowns Court there is an official who is responsible for summonsing enough jurors to try the cases that will be heard in each two-week period. The official will arrange for names to be selected at random from the electoral registers, for the area the court covers. This is done through the computer; it is necessary to summons more then 12 jurors as most Courts have more then one courtroom. Also many will be disqualified, ineligible or entitled to an excusal.
People who are summonsed must notify the court if thee is any reason why they can’t attend. Once the lists of potential jurors are known, both the prosecution and the defence have the right to see that list. In some cases it many be decided that the pool of potential jurors should be ‘vetted’ i.e. checked for suitability. There are two types of vetting, one is a Routine police check re made on prospective jurors to eliminate on those disqualified. Secondly, A wider check is made on a juror’s background and political affiliation. After many cases, the Attorney General published guidelines in 1980 on when political vetting of should take places.
Once the court clerk has selected the panel of 12 jurors, these came into the jury box to be sworn in jurors. At this point before the jury is sworn in, both the prosecution and defence have certain rights to challenge one or more of the jurors. There are two challenges, which can be made, and the prosecution have special right of stand by. To be array, this right to challenge is given; it is a challenge to the whole jury on the basis that it has been chosen in an unrepresentative or biased way. For cause,
This involves challenging the right of an individual juror to sit on the jury. To be successful the challenge must point out a valid reason why that juror should not serve on the jury. Prosecution right to stand by jurors, this is the right that the prosecution can put into effect. It allows the juror who has been stood by to put to the end of the list of potential jurors, so that they will not be used on the jury unless there are not enough other jurors.
The Advantages of jury trial are asking 12 stagers who have no legal knowledge and without any training to decide what may be complex and technical points is a meaningless one. However the jury is considered as one of the fundamentals of a democratic society. The right to be tries by one by ones’ peers, or equals. For example Lord Devilin said juries are the amp that shows that freedom lives’. People seem to believe the system is fair and impartiality.
Since juries are not legal expects, are not bound to follow the precedent of past cases or even parliament, and don’t have to give reasons for their verdict, it is possible for them to decide cases on their idea of fairness. This is referred to as jury equity. The ‘Point’ case- in which a civil servant was charged. At the trail he pleaded guilty, claiming that his actions had been in the public interest. The jury believed he had done the right thing in releasing secret information, damaging the government, therefore he was found not guilty.
The use of a jury is viewed making the legal system more open. Justice is done, as members of the public are involved in a key role and the whole process. Jury deliberations are held in private and reasons not given.
A jury should be impartial, as they are not connected to anyone in the case. The process off random selection should result in a cross-section of society and this should also lead to an impartial jury, as they will have different prejudices and so should cancel out each other’s biases. No individual can have a serious effect on the verdict. They are not case hardened like judges and magistrates.
The disadvantages of jury trial are that they can be racial bias.
The selection process may produce an all white jury, which has collective racial bias against a defendant from an ethnic minority. The possibility of racial bias shown by the research into juries by Baldwin and McConville in 1979 in which the legal professionals in the cases had serious doubts about the correctness of convictions in one out of every 20 convictions. It was apparent that black defendants were more likely to fall into this doubtful conviction category than white defendants.
Publicly in high profile cases can affect the juror’s vie on the case. In the Rosemary West case, she was convicted for the murders of 10 young girls and women, which included her own daughter. The first day the bodies were discovered, the media coverage was intense. All the media coverage had made it impossible for her to receive a fair trial. Judges must warn jury to try on evidence alone.
Also, the jury can have the Inability to understand the issues.
Where the evidence is complex or this is where a juror has poor understanding of English – e.g. fraud trials may be difficult to follow the evidence and reach a reasoned decision.
Problems with long and complex cases can be difficult to select a jury, which can sit for a long period of time and still be representative.
The rate is higher then the magistrates court and could indicate that juries are acquitting guilty people. A defendant may choose jury trail for reason incurring a more expensive process.
The Auld review recommended a number of changes to the jury system in criminal courts. The way in which a jury is selected was criticised and it suggested that, Juries should be more representative with the entitlement to be on the electoral roll as the criteria rather than actually having name or roll. Also, the Auld Review said ineligibility and excusable as of right should be abolished. This means lawyers, doctors, judges; nurses would have to sit on juries. This idea might be criticised as a lawyer could have more influence on the decision. Doctors and nurse are badly needed in the health service. Provision should be made for ethnic minority representation on juries where race is likely to be an issue. In my opinion I think that in a way that the jury its balanced because the public have a chance to get involved in the justice system. However, I think that there are disadvantages as the jury can be biased and not have as much background knowledge of law. This can make the trial cases unfair.
