Jurors and the Criminal Justice System

Jurors Criminal Trial

Introduction

The original concept of the jury was probably imported into England after the Norman Conquest in 1066. The Normans had developed the practice of putting a group of local individuals under oath to tell the truth. Early jurors in England acted as sources of information on local affairs. But they gradually came to be used as adjudicators in both civil and criminal disputes. By 1367, it had become established that a unanimous verdict was required. Initially jurors were selected for their prior knowledge of the matter in dispute. A judge summoned a group of worthy citizens to decide between rival claims based on their local knowledge. However, the principle gradually emerged that jurors should be uninvolved in the case, and by the eighteenth century a juror with personal knowledge was required to excuse himself from serving on the jury. Until the mid-nineteenth century, jury trial was the only form of trial in the common law courts, and until the early twentieth century, it continued to predominate for civil as well as criminal cases.

Jury plays a vital role in the criminal justice system in England and Wales and in many other countries. But the constitutional position of the English jury leaves it more vulnerable than the jury in the United States. In England, the right to trial by jury is not enshrined in an entrenched constitution. The nature and extent of the right to trial by jury are governed by ordinary parliamentary statute, which can be altered by a simple act of Parliament. To the extent it controls Parliament, the government of the day could, in principle, radically change or even abolish the right to jury trial. However, the political barriers to attacking the jury are considerable, and governments generally tread cautiously. The main statute governing the present day jury is the Juries Act 1974. The role of the English jury today is almost entirely confined to the more serious criminal cases. Juries occasionally sit in civil trials, and even less frequently in the Coroner's Court.

Struggling with writing your law essay?

If you're struggling with writing your law essay or problem question, then why not use our custom law essay writing service. You send us the law essay question and we give you the exact answer - in as little as 3 hours. We can help you when you need it most!

Unsure of how our ordering process works? Click here for a step-by-step essay ordering guide.

The jury in criminal cases

A jury will try a case only when it goes to the Crown Court and the defendant pleads not guilty. Criminal offences are grouped into three classes. "Summary" offences are the least serious and are triable only in the magistrates' courts. Examples of summary offences include minor traffic offences, avoiding payment of a train fare, and solicitation. The most serious offences are classified as "indictable only" and must be tried in the Crown Court. Between these extremes are offences classified as "triable either way." Such cases can be tried either in the magistrate's courts if the magistrates are willing to here the case and the defendant consents, but the defendant has the right to insist on being tried in the Crown Court, so either the magistrates or the defendant can opt for trial in the Crown Court. If the accused pleads not guilty and the trial proceeds further, he or she will be tried before a jury. About 80 % of cases tried in the Crown Court fall in this category, which includes offences such as theft, burglary, criminal damage and a range of serious offences against the person.

It is very difficult to answer that why defendants opt for Crown Court trial instead of a magistrate court, but research shows that there is a perception that there are more chances of acquittal before a jury than before a magistrate. This perception is born out by statistical evidence showing acquittal rates of approximately 40% in jury trials as compared with 25% in magistrate's courts.

Adjustments to the borderlines between the different categories of criminal offences have produced progressive erosion of the right to jury trial over the past twenty five years in England and Wales, and the trend seems likely to continue. A series of legislative enactments has reclassified several offences such as minor offences of criminal damage, so as to bring them in the category of ‘summary only' and the result being to deny the accused the opportunity of opting for jury trial in such cases. Moreover government intends to exclude defendant's right to choose for jury trial in ‘either way' cases where magistrates are wiling to deal with the matter. But such a matter is so sensitive that House of Lords twice rejected the proposed legislation to exclude the defendant's right to choose for the jury trial.

Juries in fraud cases

In addition to the ways such as classifying the offences as not being sufficiently serious for the Crown Court and by excluding the right of the defendants to choose as how their cases are dealt with, there are however other factors which have led to a reduction in the use of jury trial , even in cases of very nature. Juries competence to try complex cases, especially complex fraud prosecutions, has been questioned repeatedly, and was the subject of inquiry by the Fraud Trials Committee chaired by Lord Roskill. The recommendation of this committee was that such cases should be tried by a judge sitting with two expert assessors. The recommendation was not implemented, but is still widely discussed. Those who are in favour of jury trial, think that if juries deemed unfit to deal with complex cases of such nature, then their competence in other cases may be challenged too.

Another measure that would have the effect of reducing the number of cases tried by jury, but arguably not for the defendant's disadvantage, would be to allow the defendant to waive jury trial in respect of ‘indictable only' offences or ‘either way' offences, where the magistrates have declined the jurisdiction and bee tried instead by a judge sitting alone in the Crown Court. This would provide a form of trial between the magistrate and the jury, but without limiting the defendant's right to choose for jury trial. Many other jurisdictions are using this system, but it has not been given any serious consideration in UK.

Selection for jury service

The qualifications and prohibitions determining who can serve on a jury have undergone some significant changes in the last few decades. The number of jurors has remained twelve, but the age limit has been lowered to eighteen years113 and eligibility has been extended to include anyone on the electoral register not excluded for some specific reason. To qualify for jury service, a person must be between eighteen and seventy years of age and must have been a resident in the United Kingdom for at least five years since reaching the age of thirteen. Persons who have been sentenced in the United Kingdom to more than five years' imprisonment are disqualified from serving, as are per- sons who have served any part of certain sentences in the past ten years, have been placed on probation in the last five years, or are currently on bail in criminal proceedings. Several categories of persons are ineligible rather than disqualified. These include judges and those concerned with the administration of justice (including barristers, solicitors, police officers, prison officers, and court staff), the clergy, and mentally disordered persons. In addition, members of several professions currently have the legal right to refuse to serve, including Members of Parliament, peers, doctors, dentists, nurses, veterinary surgeons, chemists, and anyone in the armed forces. Potential jurors are randomly selected from the electoral register. Before 1972, jurors were drawn only from those who owned property of a prescribed rateable value, which ensured that juries were middle class. Research has shown that there have been profound changes in the composition of juries since 1972. However, there still appears to be an under-representation of women and ethnic minorities.

Random selection of jurors from the electoral register has been done by computer since 1981. The people selected receive a summons requiring them to attend at the Crown Court at a specified time. Those summoned constitute the panel from which the jury for an individual case will be selected if a plea of not guilty is entered. Twelve people are selected from the jury panel by ballot, which is conducted in open court, and after an opportunity for challenges, the jury is sworn and the trial can begin.

After a trial has begun, the judge has power to discharge jurors for a range of irregularities, including frivolous behaviour, drunkenness, acquisition of information that the juror should not have, or discovery of bias. The judge may also discharge jurors if they become ill or are incapable of continuing to act. England has no system of alternate jurors attending the trial and ready to take the place of discharged jurors, but the trial can continue as long as the jury does not fall below nine in number.

Jury challenges

The opportunity for the defence to influence the composition of the jury was all but eliminated in 1988 when the defence's long-standing right of peremptory challenge was completely abolished. In contrast, the prosecution's right to stand jurors by is unchanged. The right of either side to challenge for cause remains, but it is of limited use in practice. Before 1988, the opportunity to challenge peremptorily occurred after the clerk had asked twelve members of the jury panel to step into the jury box. De- fence counsel, or the accused if unrepresented, would call out "challenge" immediately before the juror in question took the oath. No reason needed to be given for the challenge and the juror was replaced by another. The right of the defence to challenge jurors had been steadily eroded over time. In 1925, the number of challenges was reduced from twenty-five to twelve; in 1949, the number was further reduced to seven (or seven per defendant where several were tried together); in 1977, the number was fixed at three; and in 1988, the Criminal Justice Act removed the right altogether.

Prosecution right of stand-by a juror and jury vetting

Prosecution has an equivalent right of stand-by a juror to the abolished right of peremptory challenge. It was widely expected that the prosecution's right to stand by would be removed with the peremptory challenge, but that has not happened. The effect of standing-by a juror is to remove him or her without showing cause. There is no limit on the number of jurors who may be stood by. In this process, the juror goes back into the pool and may in theory be called again for his/her services, in case pool runs out. The prosecution can thus defer having to show cause until the pool is exhausted. In addition, the prosecution may have access to information on jurors obtained by the police, for the purposes of jury vetting. It is up to the Director of Public Prosecutions to authorise vetting.

Get A Free Essay Quote Order Your Custom Essay

FREE OSCOLA Referencing Generator

Need help with referencing your OSCOLA citations? Our free OSCOLA reference generator will do it all for you!

Do you need to translate this page?

To translate this page into another language, please select the correct language from the box below.

Subscribe below and get new essay/resource uploads direct to your inbox

LOOKING FOR SPECIFIC HELP? We can help you in many law areas!

Did you know that we also provide a service that can help you in other law areas such as:

Want to see what our customers say about us? Click here to watch our video.

Want to become a writer for Law Teacher and earn up to £4,000 per month? Click here now!

Secure your law degree, order your criminal law essay right now!