JURY

‘The public trust a jury to come to the right decision and think that juries produce better justice.’
Explain how juries are used in the criminal justice system and assess the fairness of trial by jury.
Opinion writing on the question
Based on the question above, that the jury is referred to as a group of 12 people who are arbitrarily selected
from the common public to hear the criminal civil case and decide whether the person is innocent or not.
However, the main purpose is to involve and engage a normal person in the judicial system in order to
promote transparency and that the judiciary is not developing a biased opinion. In common law system
juries are utilized for trials but as far as the common law system is concerned they are used to improve
impartiality and public faith in the fairness of justice and for that matter this also leads to the part where the
judiciary has been involved in jury misconduct and for that matter it could affect the effective redressal
system of jury and we shall analyze that in the answer below.
Background of Jury and ECHR
As far as the English common law system is concerned, the concept of jury was introduced roughly 2000yrs
back in the 13th century and was thereafter applied within Magna Carta 1215 as was thereafter used in the
criminal trials. Juries are not part of the government or the court but are rather random members of the
society who gets to decide over a particular matter based on the evidence provided to the. Juries promote
both a social and judicial purpose enhancing public interest in the criminal justice system and acting as an
individual barrier between the convict and the state and similarly are seen as a democratic institution that
promotes the rule of law. Although, a jury is not a necessary component of a fair trial however, there have
been arguments that it should be able to cover Article 6 of ECHR i.e. right to fair trial. Moreover, there
have been arguments on the other hand that impartiality independence can be violated based on the jury
selection and it will be incorrect to say that jurors also follows the due process but this is a pre conception
that has been created.
Function and Independence of Jury
Furthermore, in Crown Courts juries are primarily used for criminal trails and indictment accounting to 3%
of cases. Whereas as far as appeal cases are concerned then 2% of the jury can be seen in those cases.
However, in the Coroner Courts juries can only be used to investigate sudden death in jails or police
custody. However, the Senior Courts Act 1981 governs the action of juries in civil trials for matter
pertaining to fraud, wrongful imprisonment or malicious prosecution by the police. However, the use of
jurors under civil proceeding has been declining since 19 th century and are only used on rare occasion.
However, the right to jury in civil disputes is limited to fraud, defamation, wrongful imprisonment,
malicious prosecution under Section 69 of the Senior Court Act. However, in contemporary jury is
responsible for evaluating factual issues and cannot questioned or penalized by the judge. Judges can order
juries to acquit individuals due to lack of evidence but they cannot order the conviction of them
Selection of Jury
As far as the selection of jury is concerned under the Juries Act 1972 it was established that anyone who is
eligible to vote and is registered as a voter similarly falls within the age bracket of 18-75 and has been living
in the UK for the past 5 years is eligible to be appointed as a jury. Prior to 1972 young people and women
were excluded from jury membership and only property owners were eligible to be appointed as jurors
which usually were the white males of the society (refer to the notes for expanding).
Jury Decision making and secrecy
Nevertheless, as per the statement given by Lord Devlin that judges must issue a decision without stating a
reason but this could result in a violation of Section 20 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 and
we can see that in the case of Taxquent v Belgium where the ECHR questioned the jury deliberation and
refusal to provide a reason for a decision since it could result in a violation of Article 6 of ECHR. The
courts however ruled that the need to provide explanation does not apply on the jurors and similarly we can
also refer to the case of R v Mirza where there was a suspicion of the jury being biased towards a Pakistani
citizen but since they were not obliged to disclose the reasons hence it could not have been proven whether
the biasness existed in the first place or not.
Jury misconduct
 Jurors should decide a case solely on the evidence presented in the court and they are not allowed to
carry their own research or rely on any information they may find out while the trial is in progress. In the
case of R v Dailas, the modern problem of internet was highlighted where the juror was imprisoned for
six-month as she carried out internet research on the defendant who was involved in a crime.
 In the case of AG v Davey and AG v Beard, the courts found the jurors in contempt as sometimes they
fail to understand what is permitted and what is prohibited.

In the case of Solicitor General, a juror was imprisoned for six-month as he conducted a research on the
defendant who was involved in a burglary trial.
Reform of Law
Moreover, based on the recommendation received from the law commission in 2013, the Criminal Justice
and Courts Act 2015 incorporated 4 acts of the jurors as a criminal activity removing Section 8 of the
Contempt of Courts Act and introducing the affor-mentioned activities as an indictable offense including
jurors research, sharing research with jurors, participating in forbidden content and leaking jury deliberation.
Race and Jury Fairness
Until the 1980s the jury selection was primarily focused towards the white males or people who belong to a
white background but when it was recognized that it does not reflect the diversity within the society then in
the case of R v ford 1989 it was ruled that judges were required to appoint a multi-racial jury.

Disadvantages for trial by jury:

There are certain disadvantages of the jury system which are as follows

1. The jury can be too quick in acquitting a person and sometimes their decision is influenced by irrational
factors and easily swayed by the advocates.
2. Jurors lack experience and the legal knowledge unlike the magistrates or the advocates.
3. Jurors may not understand the role that they are called to play which can also lead to certain delays in the
trails.
4. The jury can also be bribed and intimidated by others which leads to a bias and unfair decision.

Rape, fraud, defamation and civil cases:

1. With regard to rape trial it is recommended that it should not be heard by jury and the reason is that the
jurors may attach certain stereotypes and rape myths whilst making the decision and this would not be
favorable for the case.
2. Trial by jury was also restricted in complex fraud trials such as defamation, malicious prosecution and
false imprisonment, the use of jury was criticized in defamation cases since they are sensitive in nature
and leads to a person reputation at stake (Spiller v Joseph).

Jury around the world:

1. In South Africa trial by jury has been abolished in 1969.

2. In India also trial by jury has been abolished in 1959.
3. There are certain jurisdictions where the jury system differs from England and Whales for e.g. in France
the concept of jury operates in only the most serious criminal offenses but in the form of mixed jury
system.
4. In Cour’d assisses most serious crimes are heard by the jury such as murder and rape where 6 jurors and
3 professional judges decide the trial.
5. In USA, trial by jury is a constitutional right where the accused shall enjoy the right to the public trial by
an impartial jury. The system of jury in USA is different the England and Whales where a grand jury of
which consist of 12-23 people decide the verdict of the case. The selection criteria is slightly different
which is known as Voir Dire and the judges and the lawyers will ask questions to the jury in order to
decide whether they are favorable for their case and excuse if not so.
6. Even though, this is a lengthy process but it ensures the parties to select the jury which is the most
favorable.