1

English Legal SystemEnglish Legal SystemThe Jury SystemThe Jury System

2

IneligibleIneligibleThe following are Ineligible:The following are Ineligible:

1) suffering from mental disorders1) suffering from mental disorders

2) The judiciary and others 2) The judiciary and others concerned concerned with the administration with the administration of justiceof justice

3) The clergy3) The clergy (but see the Criminal Justice Bill 2002)(but see the Criminal Justice Bill 2002)

3

DisqualifiedDisqualifiedThe following are disqualified:The following are disqualified:

1) Persons with certain criminal 1) Persons with certain criminal convictions.convictions.

2) Those currently on bail in 2) Those currently on bail in criminal criminal proceedingsproceedings

4

Role of the JuryRole of the Jury

It is the function of the It is the function of the Jury to Jury to decide decide on matters of fact.on matters of fact.

The judge only decides matters of The judge only decides matters of law.law.

But note: that the Jury in fact But note: that the Jury in fact decides decides whether a person is guilty on whether a person is guilty on the basis the basis of their understanding of of their understanding of the law as the law as explained to them by the explained to them by the judge.judge.

5

Oath taken by jurorOath taken by juror

The oath taken by each juror states The oath taken by each juror states

that they will “ that they will “ faithfully try the faithfully try the

defendant and give a true verdict defendant and give a true verdict

according to evidence”.according to evidence”.

It’s a contempt of court if the jurors fail to It’s a contempt of court if the jurors fail to come to a verdictcome to a verdict

6

Failure to come to a Failure to come to a verdictverdict

In 1997 Judge Anura Cooray sentenced two In 1997 Judge Anura Cooray sentenced two women jurors to 30 days in prison, for women jurors to 30 days in prison, for contempt of court for their contempt of court for their failure to failure to deliver a verdictdeliver a verdictOne of the women who had been the jury One of the women who had been the jury foreman, claimed that the case, involving foreman, claimed that the case, involving allegation of fraud allegation of fraud had been too had been too complicated.complicated.

The other claimed that she could not The other claimed that she could not ethically come to a decision.ethically come to a decision.

7

Judges power to direct Judges power to direct juriesjuries

DPP V Stonehouse (1978)DPP V Stonehouse (1978)Judges have the power to direct juries to Judges have the power to direct juries to acquit the accused where there is acquit the accused where there is insufficient evidence to convict them.insufficient evidence to convict them.

This is the This is the main safeguardmain safeguard against juries against juries finding defendants guilty in spite of either finding defendants guilty in spite of either the absence or insufficiency of evidence.the absence or insufficiency of evidence.

But there is no corresponding powers for But there is no corresponding powers for the judge to direct the jury to convict.the judge to direct the jury to convict.

8

Judges power to direct Judges power to direct juriesjuries

R V Mckenna (1960)R V Mckenna (1960)

Judges could end up putting “pressure” on Judges could end up putting “pressure” on

juries to reach a guilty verdict by the way juries to reach a guilty verdict by the way

they direct and sum up the jury.they direct and sum up the jury.

If this done, it is cause for a retrial.If this done, it is cause for a retrial.

Facts : Jury asked to come out with a Facts : Jury asked to come out with a decision within 10mins after about 2 hours decision within 10mins after about 2 hours of delibiration.of delibiration.

9

Juries powersJuries powers

Juries do not have to explain the Juries do not have to explain the reason for reason for their decisions to a judge or their decisions to a judge or anyone else.anyone else.

S8 Contempt of Court Act 1981S8 Contempt of Court Act 1981

It’s a contempt of court to elicit this It’s a contempt of court to elicit this information from the Jury.information from the Jury.

(One of the weaknesses of the jury (One of the weaknesses of the jury system)system)

10

Juries powersJuries powers

R V Clive Pointing (1985)R V Clive Pointing (1985)The jury still passed a verdict of not guilty The jury still passed a verdict of not guilty despite the judge making it clear beyond despite the judge making it clear beyond doubt that the defendant was guilty of the doubt that the defendant was guilty of the Official Secrets Act 1911Official Secrets Act 1911

Weakness of the jury system.Weakness of the jury system.

The fact that they don’t have to explain The fact that they don’t have to explain their judgmenttheir judgment

11

Juries powersJuries powers

Pat Pottle and Michael RandallPat Pottle and Michael RandallThe accused admitted their guilt in The accused admitted their guilt in participating in the open escape of the spy participating in the open escape of the spy George blake,George blake,

the jury returned a not guilty verdict, the jury returned a not guilty verdict, in in open defiance of the law.open defiance of the law.

12

Juries perverse decisionsJuries perverse decisions

R v Kronlid (1996)R v Kronlid (1996)Facts : three protestors caused criminal Facts : three protestors caused criminal damage to aircrafts that were to be sent to damage to aircrafts that were to be sent to Indonesia for the use “in genocidal campaign”.Indonesia for the use “in genocidal campaign”.

The jury acquitted the three although the The jury acquitted the three although the three did not deny causing the criminal three did not deny causing the criminal damage.damage.

13

Jury ignoring legal Jury ignoring legal formalitiesformalities

Even in non political cases, Juries do Even in non political cases, Juries do ignore legal formalities (not taking into ignore legal formalities (not taking into account the law, facts and evidence).account the law, facts and evidence).

In Sep 2000, Stephen Owen was charged In Sep 2000, Stephen Owen was charged with an offence after he had shot at the with an offence after he had shot at the driver of a lorry that had killed his child.driver of a lorry that had killed his child.

The jury refused to find him guilty.The jury refused to find him guilty.

14

Juries fear to tryJuries fear to tryJury trials can put the jury through harrowing Jury trials can put the jury through harrowing experience.experience.In 2003, two illegal immigrants, Baghad Meziane In 2003, two illegal immigrants, Baghad Meziane and Brahim Benmerzouga, were convicted of and Brahim Benmerzouga, were convicted of various offences under the terrorism Act 2000.various offences under the terrorism Act 2000.

They had raised large amounts of money for They had raised large amounts of money for AlQaida.AlQaida.

Many of the jurors feared reprisals and were Many of the jurors feared reprisals and were unwilling to sit in the jury.unwilling to sit in the jury.

15

Appeal from the jury Appeal from the jury decisiondecision

It is an absolute rule that there should It is an absolute rule that there should

not be an appeal from the juries not be an appeal from the juries decision, to acquit the accused.decision, to acquit the accused.

S36 Criminal Justice Act 1972S36 Criminal Justice Act 1972

Appeal on points of law allowedAppeal on points of law allowed

In civil cases juries decision can be In civil cases juries decision can be overturned if decision was “perverse”overturned if decision was “perverse”

16

Majority verdictsMajority verdicts

Criminal Justice Act 1967Criminal Justice Act 1967

A majority decision is sufficient,.. if not A majority decision is sufficient,.. if not less then 11 jurors and 10 agreeless then 11 jurors and 10 agree

10 jurors and nine agree.10 jurors and nine agree.

Before this act it required an unanimous Before this act it required an unanimous decision.decision.

17

Discharge of jurorsDischarge of jurors

The trial judge may discharge the whole The trial judge may discharge the whole jury if certain irregularities occur.jury if certain irregularities occur.

E.g. if the accused previous convictions E.g. if the accused previous convictions were mentioned in open courtwere mentioned in open court

Such a disclosure would be prejudicial Such a disclosure would be prejudicial to the accusedto the accused

18

Role of the JuryRole of the JuryCriminal Cases :Criminal Cases :

The Jury decide if the defendant is The Jury decide if the defendant is guilty or notguilty or not..

In civil cases the Jury decide if the In civil cases the Jury decide if the claimant has proved their case and the claimant has proved their case and the amount of damages to amount of damages to award.(compensation)award.(compensation)

Only for Defamation, Malicious Only for Defamation, Malicious prosecution, false imprisonment and prosecution, false imprisonment and fraud.fraud.

19

Procedure to selectProcedure to selectRandom natureRandom nature

Officer of the court summons a randomly Officer of the court summons a randomly selected number of qualified individuals selected number of qualified individuals from the electoral registerfrom the electoral register

from that group, panels of potential jurors from that group, panels of potential jurors for various cases are drawn upfor various cases are drawn up

the actual jurors are then randomly the actual jurors are then randomly selected by means of a ballot in open courtselected by means of a ballot in open court

20

Excused as of rightExcused as of rightThe following are excused as of right:The following are excused as of right:

1) anyone aged 65-70 years old1) anyone aged 65-70 years old

2) anyone who did jury service in the last 2) anyone who did jury service in the last 2 2 yearsyears

3) Members of parliament3) Members of parliament

4) Medical profession4) Medical profession

5) armed forces members5) armed forces members

6) Practicing members of a religious society6) Practicing members of a religious society

21

Discretionary power to Discretionary power to excuseexcuse

Practice Note 1988Practice Note 1988

The court can excuse the jurors on the The court can excuse the jurors on the following grounds.following grounds.

A) personal involvement in caseA) personal involvement in case

b) close connection with a party or witnessb) close connection with a party or witness

c) personal hardshipc) personal hardship

d) conscientious objection to jury serviced) conscientious objection to jury service

22

Jury vettingJury vettingThe jury may be vet/checked by the The jury may be vet/checked by the

following methods :following methods :

1)1) Checking of criminal records for Checking of criminal records for convictionsconvictions

R v Mason (1980)R v Mason (1980)

2) Checking of special branch and security 2) Checking of special branch and security services records in cases services records in cases

involving national involving national security and terrorist security and terrorist cases.cases.Attorney General Guidelines in practice Attorney General Guidelines in practice note (1988)note (1988)

23

Challenging the arrayChallenging the array

The defendant has the right to challenge the The defendant has the right to challenge the

whole jury on the basis that it has been whole jury on the basis that it has been

chosen in an chosen in an unrepresentative or biased wayunrepresentative or biased way

24

Challenging for causeChallenging for cause

The defendant and prosecution have the The defendant and prosecution have the right to challenge all or individual jurors on right to challenge all or individual jurors on the following grounds :the following grounds :

1) juror is not qualified to serve1) juror is not qualified to serve

2) juror is biased2) juror is biased

3) juror may reasonably be suspected of bias3) juror may reasonably be suspected of bias

The issue is then tried by the judgeThe issue is then tried by the judge

25

Challenging for causeChallenging for causeThe Angry Brigade case (1972) The times The Angry Brigade case (1972) The times

19721972Facts : a group of people was charged with Facts : a group of people was charged with carrying out a bombing campaign against carrying out a bombing campaign against prominent members of the conservative prominent members of the conservative government.government.In the process of empanelling the Jury, the Judge In the process of empanelling the Jury, the Judge asked potential jurors to exclude themselves on asked potential jurors to exclude themselves on a variety of socio-political grounds, including a variety of socio-political grounds, including being active members of the conservative party.being active members of the conservative party.

The Lord Chief Justice issued a practice The Lord Chief Justice issued a practice directions in which he stated that potential directions in which he stated that potential jurors should not be excluded on account jurors should not be excluded on account ofof1) race, religion, politics or occupation1) race, religion, politics or occupation

26

Challenging on issue of Challenging on issue of racerace

R v Danvers(1982)R v Danvers(1982)Facts : The defence had sought to Facts : The defence had sought to challenge the arraychallenge the array on the basis that a on the basis that a black defendant could not have complete black defendant could not have complete confidence in the impartiality of an all confidence in the impartiality of an all white Jury.white Jury.

Held : The court disallowed the challenge.Held : The court disallowed the challenge.

27

Challenging on issue of Challenging on issue of racerace

R v Ford(1989)R v Ford(1989)Facts: the trial judge refused to accept the Facts: the trial judge refused to accept the defendant’s application for a racially mixed jury.defendant’s application for a racially mixed jury.The CA approved the decision :The CA approved the decision :““fairness is achieved by the principle of random fairness is achieved by the principle of random selection” and to insist on a racially balanced selection” and to insist on a racially balanced jury would be contrary to the principle”.jury would be contrary to the principle”.

R v Smith (2003) CAR v Smith (2003) CAReaffirmed the view that it had not been unfair Reaffirmed the view that it had not been unfair for smith to be tried with a randomly picked jury.for smith to be tried with a randomly picked jury.

28

Racial bias in juriesRacial bias in juries

The case of Kuldip Sander (1995)The case of Kuldip Sander (1995)Facts : One of the jurors wrote a note to the Facts : One of the jurors wrote a note to the judge, during the trial stating that one of the judge, during the trial stating that one of the jurors had made racist jokes openly.jurors had made racist jokes openly.The judge called all of them except the one who The judge called all of them except the one who wrote and questioned them on their wrote and questioned them on their “impartiality”“impartiality”He then allowed the jury to sit through the case.He then allowed the jury to sit through the case.The accused was found guilty.The accused was found guilty.The appeal to the court of appeal was dismissed.The appeal to the court of appeal was dismissed.The ECHR felt that it was contrary to Art 6(1) of The ECHR felt that it was contrary to Art 6(1) of the ECHR.the ECHR.

29

Right to “stand by” jurorsRight to “stand by” jurorsThe The prosecution prosecution may also require any may also require any numbers numbers

of jurors to “standby by” .ie. Not to sit on of jurors to “standby by” .ie. Not to sit on the Jury the Jury unless there are sufficient members of the unless there are sufficient members of the panel to make up a full jury.panel to make up a full jury.

For the following reasons :For the following reasons :1) to remove a “manifestly unsuitable 1) to remove a “manifestly unsuitable juror”juror”2) 2)

30

Weakness of jury trialWeakness of jury trial1) 1) Jury trials cost on an average $13,500 Jury trials cost on an average $13,500 compared with only $2500 for a case tried compared with only $2500 for a case tried by by magistrates.magistrates.

2) As jurors are selected from the 2) As jurors are selected from the electoral register, they may not be suitable electoral register, they may not be suitable to handle the complexities in some cases.to handle the complexities in some cases.

3) Juries have come out with 3) Juries have come out with “unjustifiable” decisions, despite clear “unjustifiable” decisions, despite clear evidenceevidence

31

Argument for jury trialArgument for jury trial1) 1) Historic right to a trial by jury- Public Historic right to a trial by jury- Public perception of fair and justperception of fair and just

2) right be tried by a member of the public 2) right be tried by a member of the public - a peer and equal- a peer and equal

3) some members of the society have little 3) some members of the society have little confidence in the magistrate’s impartiality.confidence in the magistrate’s impartiality.

32

The Runciman The Runciman CommissionCommission

The royal commission on Criminal Justice (1999) The royal commission on Criminal Justice (1999) made the following recommendationsmade the following recommendationsIn parliament as Criminal Justice Bill 2002In parliament as Criminal Justice Bill 2002 : :1) 1) S8 of the Contempt of CourtS8 of the Contempt of Court should be repealed. should be repealed.2) Electoral rolls should be comprehensive2) Electoral rolls should be comprehensive3) Clergymen and members of religious body should 3) Clergymen and members of religious body should be eligiblebe eligible4) Jurors should affirm that they have no 4) Jurors should affirm that they have no disqualifying convictions.disqualifying convictions.5) It should be possible to select at least 03 jurors 5) It should be possible to select at least 03 jurors from the ethnic minoritiesfrom the ethnic minorities6) P or D should be allowed to argue for the need 6) P or D should be allowed to argue for the need for the 03 to be of the same ethnic minority as the for the 03 to be of the same ethnic minority as the accused.accused.7) Protect jurors from intimidation7) Protect jurors from intimidation