1

Chapter 9: JURIES

 Juries have been used in the English legal system for over 1000 years.
 Jury trial existed since Magna Carta 1215, which is a charter, agreed
by King John of England which imposed law’s limitation on a rule. It
stated that “No free man shall be taken or imposed…. Nor will we go or
send against him except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the
law of the land”.
 Jury trial takes place in the Crown Court and there are usually 10 to 12
people in the Jury box.
 The jurors hear all indictable criminal offences as well as offences
triable either way such as theft.
 The Jury decides whether the accused is guilty or not. In addition to
this, jurors have dual role in civil cases, they decide whether the
claimant has proved his or her case, then, if they decide that the
claimant has won the case, the jury will also go on to decide the amount
of damages that defendant has to pay.
 Jury hear 4 types of civil cases that is:
I. Defamation
II. False imprisonment
III. Malicious prosecution
IV. Fraud
 The jury can no longer hear personal injury cases. (WARD v JAMES).
In SINGH v LONDON UNDERGROUND, a request for a jury to try
personal injury case arising from the King’s Cross Underground fire
was refused. It was held that the case was unsuitable for jury trial
because it involved such wide issues and technical points.
 Fewer than ten cases are heard by a jury each year, and almost all of
these are for defamation. In defamation cases involving public figures
the jury maybe biased.
 The Runciman Commission 1992 suggested that 10% of the jurors have
difficulty in dealing with the fraud cases because they are long and
complex.

JURY QUALIFICATION:

 The qualifications for jury service were revised in 1972 following the
Morris Committee Report on jury service. Hence in order to become a
juror it was necessary to be the owner or tenant of a dwelling. The
Morris Committee thought that being a juror should be the counterpart
of being a citizen. As a result, the qualifications for jury service were
 2

widened in the Criminal Justice Act 1972 and based on the right to
vote.
 The present qualification are set out in the Juries Act 1974 so that to
qualify for jury service a person must be:
1. Aged between 18 to 76
2. Registered as a parliamentary or local government elector.
3. Juror must not be a mentally disordered person or disqualified
from jury service.

 DISQUALIFIED permanently from jury service are those who at any

time have been sentenced to:
I. Imprisonment for life, detention for life or custody for life
II. Detention during Her Majesty’s Pleasure or during the Pleasure
of the Secretary of State
III. Imprisonment for public protection or detention for public
protection
IV. An extended sentence
V. A term of imprisonment of 5 years or more or a term of detention
of 5 years or more.
 Those who have a serious criminal conviction in the past or are on bail
at the time of the trial are disqualified.
 Lawyers and police officers used to be ineligible. Those who are
providing an important public service such as doctors etc used to be
excused from jury service.
 Since 2004 the only people excused from jury service are full time
members of the armed forces.
 However, under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 the court has the power
to grant discretionary excusal or to defer service to a later date.
Reasons for this includes illness, small children, business commitments
and booked holidays.
 Under this Act lawyers and police officers are no longer ineligible and
are obligated to serve unless they are personally connected to the case.
 A MENTALLY DISORDERED PERSON is defined in the Criminal
Justice Act 2003 as:
 A person who suffers or has suffered from mental illness,
psychopathic disorder, mental handicap or severe mental
handicap and on account of that condition either is resident in a
hospital or regularly attends for treatment by a medical
practitioner
 A person for the time being under guardianship under s7 of the
Mental Health Act 1983.
 3

 A person who under Part 7 of that Act has been determined by

a judge to be incapable of administering his property and
affairs.

 A judge at the court may discharge a person from being a juror for lack
of incapacity to cope with the trial. This could be because the person
does not understand English adequately or because of some disability
is not suitable as a juror which includes blind as he cannot see plans
and photographs produced as evidence.

SELECTION OF JURIES:

 At each Crown Court there is an official who is responsible for

summoning enough jurors to try the cases that will be heard in each
two week period. This official will arrange for names to be selected at
random from the electoral registers, for the area which the court covers.
This is done through computer selection at a central office. It is
necessary to summon more than 12 jurors as most courts have more
than one court room.
 Once the list of potential jurors is known, both the prosecution and the
defence have the right to see that list. In some cases potential jurors
should be ‘vetted’ that is checked for suitability. There are two types of
vetting:
1. Routine police checks:

Routine police checks are made on prospective jurors to eliminate

those disqualified. In R v CROWN COURT at SHEFFIELD, the
defendant was a police officer and the defence sought
permission to vet the jury panel for convictions. The judge gave
permission but COA, while holding that it had no power to
interfere said that vetting was unconstitutional and a serious
invasion of privacy and not sanctioned by the Juries Act 1974.

2. Jurors background:
A wider check is made on a juror’s background and political
affiliations. The Attorney General published guidelines on when
political vetting of jurors should take place. These guidelines
state that:
I. Vetting should only be used in exceptional cases involving
national security where part of the evidence is likely to be
given in camera and in terrorist cases.
 4

II. Vetting can only be carried out with the Attorney General’s
express permission.

SELECTION AT COURT:

 The jurors are usually divided into groups of 15 and allocated to a

court. If there are not enough jurors to hear all the cases scheduled for
that day at the court, there is a special power to select anyone who is
qualified to be a juror from people passing by in the streets or from
local offices or business. This is called ‘praying a talesman’.

CRITICISMS OF THE SELECTION OF JURIES:

I. Use of electoral register:

The method of selecting jurors from the list of registered voters is open
to criticism as it does not always give a representative sample of the
population. It excludes some groups such as the homeless, who cannot
register to vote. Also not everyone is eligible to vote especially the young
or those who frequently change their addresses.
II. Random selection:
One of the debates has always been whether random selection
produces juries which are reasonably representative of the local
population. Previously studies have shown that juries were not truly
representative in gender, age and race. However now a study,
diversity and fairness in the jury system, found that juries are now
representative in gender, age and race. The only
Under-representation found by the study was of lower classes and
unemployed.
III. Disqualified jurors:
Although some checks are carried out, many disqualified people fail to
disclose that they are disqualified and sit on juries.
IV. Excusals:
If there are too many discretionary excusals it may lead to an
unrepresentative jury. The main reasons for excusals were medical
conditions, looking after children and business commitments.

ADVANTAGES OF JURY TRIAL:

 Public confidence:

On the face of it, 12 strangers who have no legal knowledge and

without any training to decide what may be complex and technical points is
 5

an absurd practice. Yet the jury is considered as one of the fundamentals of

democratic society. Lord Devlin stated that jury is “the lamp that shows that
freedom lives”. The jurors are chosen from the public and they understand the
needs of the society.

 Jury equity:

Since juries are not legal experts, are not bound to follow precedents of
previous cases or even Acts of Parliament, and do not have to give reasons for
their verdict, it is possible for them to decide cases in their own way of
fairness. This is sometimes referred as jury equity.

 Open system of justice:

The use of a jury is viewed as making the legal system more open. Justice is
seen to be done as members of the public are involved in a key role and the
whole process is public.

 Secrecy of the jury room:

The jury discussion takes place in secret. The Criminal Justice and Courts Act
2015 makes it a criminal offence intentionally to disclose or solicit or obtain
any particulars of statements made, opinions expressed, arguments advanced
and votes casted by the jury. The secrecy of the jury’s discussions can be
seen as an advantage, since the jury is free from pressure in their discussion.
Jurors are protected from outside influences when deciding on the verdict.
This allows juries to bring in verdicts that may be unpopular with the public
as well as allowing jurors the freedom to ignore the strict letter of law. It has
been suggested that people would be less willing to serve on a jury if they
knew that their discussions could be made public.

 Impartiality:

A jury should be impartial as they are not connected to anyone in the case.
The process of random selection should result in a cross section of society and
this should also lead to an impartial jury, as they will have different
prejudices and so should cancel out each other’s biases.

DISADVANTAGES OF JURY TRIAL:

 Perverse decision:

As we have seen that jury can ignore the unjust law through jury equity but in
some circumstances this type of decision can be seen as a perverse decision
and one which was not justified. Juries have refused to convict in clear cut
 6

cases as seen in the case of R v RANDLE AND POTTLE where the

defendants were charged with helping the spy George Blake to escape from
prison. Their prosecution did not occur until 25 years after the escape, when
they wrote about what they had done and the jury acquitted them, possibly
as a protest over the time lapse between the offence and the prosecution.

 Secrecy:

As we know secrecy of jurors protects them from outside pressure however it

is also a disadvantage. This is because no reasons have to be given for the
verdict, so there is no way of knowing if the jury did understand the case and
came to the decision for the right reasons. Before 2015 there was a very strict
rule that the appeal courts could not inquire into discussions held in the jury
room. This meant that even if one of the jury reported the other jurors had
come to a decision on biased grounds, the appeal courts would not take notice
of jury room discussions (R v MIRZA). In MIRZA the defendant was a
Pakistani who had an interpreter to help him in the why he needed an
interpreter. He was convicted on a 10 majority. Six days after the jury verdict,
one juror wrote to the defendant’s counsel alleging that from the start of the
trial there had been a theory that the use of an interpreter was a ploy. The
juror also said that she had been shouted down when she objected and
reminded her fellow jurors of the judge’s directions. The law has now been
changed by the Criminal Justice and Courts 2015 which made it an offence to
disclose or solicit or obtain any particulars of statements made, opinions
expressed, arguments advanced or votes cast by members of a jury in course
of their deliberations in any legal proceedings.

The courts have always been prepared to investigate events outside the jury
room as seen in the case of R v Young (Stephen) where the D was charged
with murder of 2 people. The jury had to stay at a hotel overnight and
suggested to use Ouija board to contact the dead and ask who had killed
them. When the use of Ouija became known to the Court of Appeal, they
quashed the conviction and ordered a retrial.

 Racial bias:

However, although jurors have no direct interest in a case as there are 12

people in a jury, they may still have prejudices which can affect the verdict.
Some jurors may be biased against the police; this is one of the reasons that
those with serious criminal convictions are disqualified from sitting in a jury.
This is why the selection of jury can produce all white jury to try a D whose is
from ethnic minority (SANDER v UNITED KINGDOM)

 Media Influence:
 7

Media coverage may influence the jury. This is especially true in high profile
cases, where there has been a lot of publicity about police investigations into
a case. In R v WEST the D was charged with murder of 10 young girls and
women including her own daughter. From the time the bodies were discovered
the media coverage was intense. One of the grounds on which the D appealed
against her conviction was that the media coverage had made it impossible
for her to receive a fair trial. The COA rejected the appeal, pointing out that
otherwise it would mean that if allegations of murder were sufficiently
horrendous so as to inevitably shock the nation, the accused could not be
tried. The trial judge had given adequate warning to the jury to consider
evidence only heard in the court.

 Use of Internet:

In recent times it is found that at least one member of the jury searched
information regarding case on the internet. This happened in the case of R v
KARAKAYA where the defendant was accused of rape. A juror searched
information on internet and brought the information to the court. The jury thus
convicted the D, but this conviction was quashed because of the outside
information. A retrial was ordered and D was acquitted by the jury in the
second trial.

 Lack of understanding:

There are worries that jurors may not understand the case which they are
trying. Research into jury trials in Australia has revealed that some jurors did
not know what verdict had been given in a case. The jurors were given
Questionnaire immediately after the verdict that what was the verdict in the
case and only in a quarter of the trials did all the jurors give the correct
answer. Hence if the jurors do not know what the verdict was immediately
after the verdict had been given, then it creates doubts about how much of the
case the jurors understood.

 Fraud trials:

Fraud trials with complex accounts being given in evidence can create special
problems for jurors. Even jurors who can easily cope with other evidences
may have difficulty understanding a fraud case. These cases are too long so
the jurors have to stay away from their own work for months. The Domestic
Violence Crime and Victims Act 2004 stated that there is a special provision
for cases where there are a large number of counts on the indictment. This
allows a trial of sample counts with a jury and then if the D was convicted on
those, the reminder is dealt by the judge. A jury will try some charges only
and if the D is guilty then the judge will take over alone.
 8

 Jury tampering:

In a few cases friends of the D may try to interfere with the jury. This may be
by bribing the jury to give a not guilty verdict or by threatening them. In such
a case police protection is complex and removes them from their own work
hence the section 44 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 provides that where
there has already been an effort to tamper with a jury in the case the
prosecution can apply for the trial to be heard by the judge alone. In R v
Twomey and others the D was charged with various offences connected to a
large robbery from a warehouse at Heathrow. There was serious attempt at
jury tampering thus the COA ordered a trial without a jury.

 High Acquittal rates:

Juries are often criticized on the grounds that they acquit too many
defendants. Usually about 10 to 15 percent of acquittals are by a jury but on
the direction of a judge. This occurs where the judge rules that there is no
case against the D because of a legal point or because the prosecution
evidence is not sufficient in law to prove the case.

 Expensive:

Use of jurors is expensive and makes the trials slow. This is because whole
case has to be explained carefully to the jury.

SPECIAL PROBLEMS OF USING JURIES IN CIVIL CASES:

 Amount of damages:
Juries in civil cases decide both the liability and the amount damages.
The awards vary greatly as each jury has its own ideas and does not
follow past cases. The amount is therefore unpredictable which makes
it difficult for the lawyers to advice on settlements.
 Unreasoned decision:
A jury does not give reasons for his decision like the judge.
 Bias:
The problems of bias in civil cases are different from that encountered
in criminal cases. In some defamation cases the claimants or the
defendants may be public figures so that jurors will know and possibly
hold views about them.
 Cost:
Civil cases are expensive and the use of a jury adds to this as the case
is likely to last longer.
 9

Hence to conclude, it is safe to say that a trial by one’s own peers is a bastion
(maintaining particular principles) of british liberty against the state.