Juries that are used in criminal cases however have different roles. Juries are frequently used in criminal cases in the Crown Court, where they decide whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty. However, the jury is only used when the defendant pleads not guilty. The jury in criminal cases consists of twelve members and like in civil cases is there to provide local knowledge and a fair and reasonable verdict. The trial is presided over by a judge and the functions are split between the judge and jury. The judge decides points of law and the jury decides the facts. At the end of the prosecution case the jury has the decision to acquit the defendant if they feel that the evidence put forward has not made out a case against the defendant. This is known as a direct acquittal and happens in one of every ten criminal cases.
Where the trial continues, the judge will sum up the case at the end to the jury and direct them on any law matters involved. The jury will then retire to the private room where they will discuss the evidence and make a decision on whether they fell the defendant is guilty or not guilty. The jury must reach a unanimous verdict in which they all agree, however they do not have to give any reasons for their verdict. The judge must accept this verdict whether he or she agrees. If after a minimum of two hours the jury has not reached a unanimous verdict, the judge may call them back into the courtroom and accept a majority verdict. This can be either 11-1 or 10-2.
Q: Examine critically the arguments for and against the use of juries in the legal system.
Since the start of the use of juries in British courts, there have been arguments for the abolishment of juries and arguments for juries remaining in the English Legal System. People in favour of the jury system believe that it offers certainty as in a criminal case, the jury simply states whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty. The jury doesn’t have to give a reason for their verdict therefore the decision is not open to discussion, thus creating public confidence. Lord Devlin said that “ Juries are the lamp that show that freedom lives.” This helps to emphasise the fact that the majority of people have confidence in the jury system. The tradition of trial by jury is very old and many people have faith in the impartiality and fairness of this procedure. One main reason for this is public participation, because juries allow the ordinary citizen to take part in the administration of justice on one’s peers. This has been defined by Lord Denning as “giving ordinary folk their finest lesson in citizenship.” Jury members are the sole judges of the evidence, with the right to give a verdict according to their conscience, and cannot be penalized for having opposing views of the facts to that of the judge. This once again re-enforces public confidence into the jury system.
Arguments for the abolishment of the jury system seem to out-weigh that of those in favour. It is a fact that juries are not representative of the whole population, as research carried out by Zander and Henderson in 1993 found that women were only slightly under represented and that non-white jurors constituted 5% of jurors while they made up 5.9% of the national population. This could possibly lead to racial bias, where a defendant from an ethnic minority may not receive a fair trial due to his background. Determining the mode of trial in either way cases seems to prove that manipulation of the right to jury trial by defendants is a major problem. Defendants often choose this option as it is delayed and time consuming in comparison to the alternative mode of trial. The delay put on the Crown Prosecution Service to reduce the charge in exchange for the defendant pleading guilty in order to speed up the process. It is also highly likely that a witness will not appear or not to be able to remember all the facts correctly making an acquittal increasing likely.
Another disadvantage in the jury system is the possibility of jury nobbling, where the jurors can be bribed in order to give a certain verdict or attempt to inflict a certain opinion on other jury members. This was the case in Northern Ireland when terrorists attempted to nobble the jury, resulting in the jury being suspended. This may lead to juror distress, which is often found in serious cases such as child abuse. Distress to jury members, can be influenced by the evidence put forward to them, i.e. photographs of injuries, and this distress is not easily relieved as juror members are not permitted not to discuss the case with anyone else. Due to reasons like this and other external issues such as work, people often resent being a jury member. The fact that jury service is compulsory means that some people make unsatisfactory decisions, in particular juror members keen to get away quickly tend to follow the majority whether they agree or not.
Trial by jury is also very expensive and time consuming. A Crown Court trial currently costs the taxpayer around £7 400 per day as opposed to £1 000 for trial by Magistrates. The whole process is very time consuming as jury members usually spend most of their time waiting to be summoned into court.
