The cover by television and newspapers of important or controversial trials may influence the jurors. Although Section 8 (1) of Contempt Of Court (1981) jurors aren’t allowed to discuss the case during the course of trial, it is practically impossible to avoid the opinions of the reporters and newsreaders. In R v Taylor and Taylor (1993) in which two sisters were charged with murder. Some news papers published a still from a video sequence which gave a false impression of what happened. After the jury convicted them, the trial judge gave leave to appeal because of the possible influence this picture could have had on the jury’s verdict.
These twelve people may have prejudice,which may affect the verdict. Even though it is claimed that jurors have no direct interest, they may still be biased, for example against the police or against ethnic minorities. An all twelve-man jury may be selected to try a defendant from an ethnic minority. In Sander v U.K(2002), the European Court of Human Rights ruled that there had been a breach of right to fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convection on Human Rights. In this case one juror had written a note to the judge raising concern over the fact that other jurors had been making racist remarks and jokes. Research in 1979 by Baldwin and McConville found that ethnic minorities were severely under-represented on juries. They looked at a sample of 3912 jurors and found there were only 28 jurors from ethnic minorities while census figures indicated that the figure should have been more.
Juries acquit too many defendants. J. Martin in “English Legal System” says that supporting figures show that 60% of those who not guilty at the crown court are acquitted even though the figure contains those discharged by the judge. Onother research on acquittals by jury was conducted by Dr G. Slapper, of the Open University Law Programme, show that acquittal rates have shot up from 32% in 1970 to 43%in 1999. Such unjustifiable trend in course of pursuing justice is very unfair. It defeats the entire purpose of hearing from the defendants and the prosecution. Other circles that have expressed disappointment with this trend are the Police who say that it undermines the war on crime
The jury service itself is unpopular in the eyes of the public. J. Herring in “Criminal Law” say that that although jurors receive payment for travelling expenses and allowances for loss of earnings, it is probable that many of them suffer some financial losses. The period of the jury service may take two weeks and this may place strain on the jurors such as those with young children. L.B. Carzon in “Criminal Law” says that there is a danger that jurors may agree with a verdict to bring quicker end to the trial, there by defeating the idea of burden of proof. The jurors may experience frustration in having to wait in court buildings before being called during service and possibly never being called during the period of service. The jurors may suffer post-traumatic stress disorder in the period after trials which involve horrific crimes such as murder and rape, and in which the jury is exposed to graphic, gruesome details and photographic evidence of the crime. J. Herring in “Criminal Law”(200) say that in America jurors can receive psychiatric counselling directly after the trial is over. Jurors in R v West (1996)were offered counselling after the trial to help them cope with evidence they had to see and hear.
It is very difficult to research on the jury because its discussions take place in secret and there can be no inquiry into how they reached the verdict. Section 8 of the Contempt of Court Act(1981)makes disclosure of anything that happened in the jury room an offence. The Runciman Commission suggested that this should be amended to allow research into workings of the juries. In particular it says there should be research into the influence that criminal convictions may have on the jury verdicts.
In perverse verdicts or sometimes called jury equity , there is always a miscarriage of justice. The jury will always acquit people who in real sense are supposed to be convicted. An illustration of jury equity is the case of R v Randle and Pottle(1991) where the defendants were charged with helping the spy George Blake to escape from prison. Their prosecution did occur until 25 years after the escape, when they wrote what they had done and the jury acquitted them possibly because of time lapse between the offence and the prosecution. Such acquittals do not serve justice at all.
It is said by W.J. Brown that jury nobbling does occur. In some cases the jury have to be provided with police protection, despite the law protecting the jury against anyone perverting the course of justice. However the Criminal Procedure and Investigation Act(1996)allows for a retrial to be ordered if someone is subsequently proved to have been interfered with the jury.
When judge gives a judgement he explains his reasoning, which is called Orbita-dicta and then followed by the principle of law the judge used for the judgement, known as the Ratio-decendedi. This turns to be the premise for appeal and it also serves as precedent in similar cases and a warning to the public not to commit the same offence. However this is not the case with the trial by jury since no reasons are given for the verdict. This really makes it difficult to appeal against the verdict.
Selection of people in the jury at the age of eighteen is too young for jury service. Even though it is thought that they are capable of making decisions during elections, they are not enveloped with enough life experience to make serious decisions towards a verdict in court.
Despite all the criticisms outlined in the first half of this essay, the jury has been praised and a lot of people are happy that it exists because of the following reasons
Since the judges are employed by the government, they can be easily can be easily influenced by the government of the day. This influence may be inform of promotions and demotions and it possible to question their recruitment into the system since the Lord chancellor who endorses finally on their employment serves the government of the day. The jury saves as a democratic safeguard as Lord Devlin said, “they are the lamp that freedom lives”. The jurors have nothing to loose thus their verdicts are supposed to reflect real justice.
The verdict from a jury of ordinary lay persons appears to be more acceptable to the public than if it came from a single judge. Because of this reason they enjoy a lot of public confidence since they are ordinary people taking part in the administration of the law.
The jury is impartial and has no direct interest in the result. In R v Gough(1992), after the jury’s verdict of guilty it was discovered that a juror knew a close elative of the defendant who later appealed on grounds that it constituted a serious irregularity in the conduct of the trial. The court of appeal held that it would not interfere with a jury’s verdict unless it would have shown that the defendant did not have a fair trial or was likely to be prejudiced. This evidently shows the high regard it holds.
In cases of jury equity it has come up with verdicts which is just rather than legally correct. In some cases with exceptional circumstances, have refused to follow the letter of law and considered that only an acquittal would be a just verdict. Clive Ponting was acquitted of a charge under the Official Secrets Act although the judge informed the jury that the accused had no defence in law. In 1992 Stephen Owen shot a man who by reckless had killed his son. The jury acquitted him while it was certain that a judge sitting alone would have held him guilty. The juries in these cases must have considered that justice was best served by acquittal.
Other advantages of maintaining the jury are that; the jury are not case hardened than judges because they share the real life experience like the defendants like in the case of Stephen Owen, twelve jurors are better than one judge since chances for all these 12 people to error are slim unlike one person who may face similar cases everyday
As noted from the arguments for and against, most of the arguments presented as advantageous to the existence of the jury are simply assumptions. It is possible that in real experience the juries may behave in contrary. The arguments for the abolition of the jury are more factual and bear strong evidence. For this reason I have been drown to conclude that the abolition of the jury will improve the quality of justice in criminal court.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
- W.J. Brown, “GSCE Law”Sweet and Maxwell(1993),
- R. Card,”Criminal law”William Cloves Ltd(1998)
- L.B.Curzon,”Criminal Law”Pitman publications (1997)
- J.Herring, “Criminal Law”Palgrave Law Masters(2002)
- J.Martin, “English Legal System”Scotprint Ltd(1997)
- Student Law Review Autumn (1996)
- THE INDEPENDENT, 11-11-1999