A jury of eight members can sit in the County Court to hear civil action cases due to the County Court Act 1988. The grant of a jury is at the discretion of the court, in all other cases, which means that the judge decides on whether or not there is a jury present.
A jury of 7-11 people must be summoned in certain cases such as; death in prison, or police custody, or by a police officer. They are summoned by the coroners’ due to the Coroners Act 1988.
Most criminal cases are heard in the Crown Court on indictment charges. Juries are never used in Magistrates Courts. Juries are mainly found in criminal cases in the Crown Court. Jurors decide and make their decisions on matters of fact. The job of a jury is to decide on a verdict based on evidence presented to the court. The jury is not a permanent body of people, they are anomalous and amorphous.
Twelve people from a group of potential jurors will be called by the court; these 12 people will make up the jury as they have several trials going on at the same time. Each potential juror is called to the jury box to be sworn. An oath has to be taken which is as follows:
“I swear by almighty God that I will faithfully try the defendant and give a true verdict according to the evidence.”
The juror may choose to affirm or take the oath upon a Holy Book other than a Bible. If in rare cases both the prosecution and the defence’s advocates think that a potential juror is unfit to serve on the jury, they will ask him/her to leave the jury box before they are sworn in. Any one juror cannot be challenged by the defence but, the group as a whole can be challenged on the grounds of not accurately reflecting the local population.
After both the prosecution and the defence have presented their evidence, the judge concludes the case and explains to the jury on what they have to decide to decide. To conclude their verdict, jurors are resigned to one room. The jury’s verdict should be unanimous but if they spend over 2 hours deciding upon a verdict the judge can ask for a majority verdict. The aim of the majority verdict is to speed up a decision, or make it possible to reach one, where most members of the jury are in agreement.
During a trial, jurors can make notes about the case, any questions that jurors may have, have to be written down on paper and shown to the judge, if the question arises in the jury room. The jury will then be called back into the court so the judge can answer the question, while the points of law are agued between the two advocates for each side and the juries excluded from the court.
Whilst the jury is deliberating their verdict they are in a private room where they cannot be disturbed. The court hears the jury’s verdict from the foreman, who is selected by the jury.
Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of trial by jury
There are many advantages and disadvantages of trial by jury; one advantage is that jury service allows ordinary people to participate in the administration of justice. The verdict will be fairer and the criminal will benefit as well as the jury is less harsh then the judge.
A jury is anonymous and cannot be identified as hailing from any particular background or having any particular prejudices. Hence, the verdicts can be fair and impartial.
A verdict from a jury of ordinary lay persons appears to be more acceptable to the public, than if it came from a single judge. From this there is an impression that justice has not only been done, it has seen to be done as well.
Public’s faith in the jury system is strong as the jury system has existed for hundreds of years. The jury system also ensures the independence of the judiciary.
The jury system also gives the citizen protection against repugnant laws; this is referred to as ‘jury equity’. Some example of cases which involved jury equity includes R v Kronlid [1996], Revill v Newbury [1996].
There are many alternatives to trial by jury but they have faults, these alternatives include a panel of judges, a panel of judges and lay citizens, a single judge sitting alone and taking away the defendant’s right to trial by jury and making more crimes summary offences.
A panel of judges will allow for a collective view from experts, but will reduce the roles of lay persons on the administration of justice. In addition, it would be more expensive and the system will require more judges.
A panel of judges and lay citizens would be less expensive and allow the layman a role but the qualified judge would probably influence the lay persons.
If the defendant’s right to trial by jury was taken away it would be considered as a breach of a person’s civil liberties.
Disadvantages of trial by jury include the jury being easily influenced by others; jurors may not be capable of understanding evidence in lengthy and complex cases, people resent serving on juries and juries are expensive.
Jurors can be easily influenced and swayed during the trial; these influences come from the barristers, other jurors and the media. Examples of cases which involve this are R v West [1996] R v Woodgate v Bowyer [2001].
In long and complex cases jurors may find it hard to understand the evidence presented and the issues involved. The Roskill Committee 1986 recommended that trial by jury be discontinued in fraud cases. In 1996 Ian and Kevin Maxwell were acquitted following a 131-day fraud trial which cost the taxpayer in excess of £20 million pounds.
People resent serving on juries due to the inconvenience it causes them; they do not want to lose money and do not want to give up work.
Juries can favour the accused or award excessively high damages in libel cases rather than being fair and unbiased. Juries also acquit too many defendants that are probably guilty, juries acquit more people then magistrates.
Another disadvantage is that the jury can be “nobbled” improperly influenced. This term refers to jury being blackmailed etc; in this case this is the only time when a retrial can be done. AN example of a case where the jury was “nobbled” is R v Goodwin et al [1983].
