Jury

Examinable Issues:
- Value of Jury
-Criticisms
-Jury in criminal
trials & Art 6
-Jury Reforms
-Alternatives
Who are Juries?
-12 ordinary person, randomly selected to
decide verdict of defendant in the
Crown Court
-Decide questions of fact

General Qualification?
-18 – 75yrs
-Regd on Electoral Register
Criticisms?
-Lived in UK at least 5yrs
-X ineligible / disqualified
Ineligibility?
-Prior to Criminal Justice Act 2003 -judges,
lawyers, police, clergy, mental disorder
-After CJA 2003 -All eligible except people
with mental disorders.

Disqualification?
- >5yrs imprisonment – X for life
- past 10yrs imprisoned – X 10 yrs
- people on bail
 Challenging Jury Composition
Jury Vetting

The parties to any jury trial have the right to look at the panel list from
which the jury in their trial will be chosen. This allows them to make
enquiries about panel members and decide whether any should be
challenged.
Routine police checks - carried out on each juror to ensure there is no
disqualified juror sitting in the jury.

Challenging “for cause‟

Challenge an individual juror’s right to sit on the jury with valid reason
why the juror in question should not sit on that case –disqualified,
conflict of interest, if such jurors are not removed, there is potential for
the conviction to be quashed due to a miscarriage of justice.
Challenges for Cause can be made by either the prosecution or
defence and may either be a challenge to the whole panel of jurors
(challenges to the array) or to an individual juror.
 Challenging Jury Composition
Whilst the common law power of challenges to the array is
preserved by the Juries Act 1974, it is now almost inoperative
and is of historical significance only.

R v Ford establishes that there is no requirement in English law for

a defendant to demand the inclusion of jurors on the basis of
race or ethnicity and the issue has been considered by the
Runciman Commission; the Auld Review and under the HRA in
R v Smith (2003).
Findings in 2017 by Cheryl Thomas –jury conviction rates showed
only very small differences based on defendant ethnicity.
 Value of Jury
1. Symbolic Value
-humanising element
-trial by Peer Public confidence
-protect def
2. Democratic
-reduces absolute power
-bargain btwn State & citizens
3. 12 random minds c/f 1 mind
4. Jury Equity -conscience based decision
-Stephen Owen case
 Criticisms?
1. Costly
2. X legal knowledge – complex cases
3. Jury Equity -ignores clear law (R v Kronlid)
4. Inconsistent verdicts
5. Cannot investigate decisions -S8 Contempt
of Court Act 1981 (now CJCA 2015)
6. Easily influenced -lawyer, gossip etc
7. Jury tampering & misbehaviour-bribery, threat
8. Selection -X ensure fair representation of
all society
 S8 Contempt of Court Act 1981
(now incorporated in CJCA 2015
-publish/solicit for details of jury deliberation.

Arguments agst
Why? Secrecy :
-No accountability
-Finality -Injustice
-Independence -Auld Report
-Protection of jury recommends COA to
enquire alleged
impropriety by jury
 Juries and Article 6 ECHR

In the determination of his civil rights and

obligations or of any criminal charge against
him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public
hearing within a reasonable time by an
independent and impartial tribunal established
by law.

Q : Are jury trials compatible with Art 6?

 R v Mirza (2004)
-letter to judge alleging racial prejudice, most
jurors were looking for a quick verdict,
decided guilty verdict for both defs.

-COA-dismissed appeal-bound by R v Qureshi

(2001) -letter inadmissible, preserve rule of
Secrecy.
 Q for HOL:
Were c/law rules of secrecy in breach of
Art 6 if there was suggestion of jury not
being partial?

HOL :- Any reform of the c/law -parliament

Highlighted C/law exceptions :

i)'extraneous influences'/jury tampering

ii) No deliberation at all

 European Court of Human Rights
EctHR -rule of jury secrecy -legitimate

Gregory v UK (1997)
-note to judge -jury showing racial overtones
-Judge warned jury – guilty verdict
-No breach of Art 6 -ambiguous nature of the
note -judge's warning was reasonable.
C/f

Remli v France -Overheard the jury saying

he was a racist.
 Sanders v UK (2001)

-Gregory distinguished
-jury making racist comments + judge received
letter of apology frm jurors.
-judge warned jury, did not discharge them.
-guilty verdict -def appealed.

UK Cts – No breach of Art 6

EctHR -Breach Art 6 -info of serious racial
prejudice + indirect admission that remark had
actually been made -shld have discharged jury,
warning was insufficient.
 Reforms to reduce Jury trials
-S69 Supreme Ct Act 1981 -reduction in jury
(Fraud, defamation, malicious prosecution,
False imprisonment)

-S44, S46 Criminal Justice Act 2003

Real danger of jury tampering

Evidence of jury tampering

 R v Twomey (2011)
Court of Appeal allowed John Twomey's trial for a £1.75m
armed raid at a warehouse at Heathrow to be heard by a
single judge because of "very significant" danger of jury
tampering. The trial will be the first crown court case in UK to
be heard by a judge alone since CJA 2003 came into force.
Twomey faced three earlier trials. At the first, in 2005, he
suffered a heart attack and was severed from the indictment.
His six co-defendants were acquitted. The jury failed to reach
a verdict in the second. The third was halted by the judge
when the prosecution alleged the jury had been tampered
with. The estimated cost of the trials to date exceeds £25m.
Seeking a fourth trial without a jury, senior police officers
presented evidence in secret under public interest immunity
to a judge that there was evidence of jury tampering.
 R v Twomey (2011)
Lord chief justice, Lord Judge, overruled a decision to hold
the trial with a jury put under protective measures that
would have cost about £6m and involved 82 police officers,
something he said was an "unreasonable" drain on the
public resources.
“Trial by jury is a hallowed principle in criminal justice," It is
properly identified as a right, available to be exercised by a
defendant unless and until the right is amended by express
legislation.“
Criminal Justice Act 2003 s.44, to be conducted by a judge
alone without a jury. The danger of jury tampering and the
subversion of the process of trial was very significant and
the suggested protective measures were inadequate.
 Jury Misbehaviour & the Internet
R v Mehmet Baybasin, Andrew Molloy, Martin McMullen & Others (2013)
-LCJ clarified important issues of jury selection, protection & misconduct.
Important guidance on the principles & procedures to be followed when complaint
is made of trial unfairness & conduct of the jury.

One of the grounds of appeal – JURY ACCESS TO THE INTERNET

-Juror had found a book online which referred to drug-dealing & the Baybasin
family.
Held: COA refused leave & dismissed the appeal on the basis that the trial judge
already gave a direction to the jury not to carry out internet research on the
def & the trial. Moreover, investigation by the CCRC (Criminal Cases Review
Commission) showed that the research was conducted after the conclusion
of the trial.

Ct’s presumption – If one of the jurors during trial falls below std expected of a
juror, the other jurors will report to the judge before the verdict. Inquiries should
not be ordered in cases where the finality of the verdict is accepted, unless there
are strong & compelling evidence.
 Other Misbehaviour cases:
2011 – Joanne Fraille imprisoned for contempt of Court after
she contacted def on Facebook & disclosed details of jury
deliberations.

2012- Dr Theodora Dallas imprisoned after she conducted

research into the def on the internet.

2013 – Kasim Davey posted a comment on Facebook

indicating his decision of finding the def guilty before the end
of the trial.
 Jury Reforms: Criminal Justice & Courts
Act 2015

Sections 69 - 77 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015

amend the Juries Act 1974 making certain misconduct by
jurors a criminal offence, instead of a contempt of court.

Section 77 of the Act makes clear that the creation of the

new offences does not affect what constitutes contempt of
court at common law.
 Jury Reforms: Criminal Justice &
Courts Act 2015
Where a jury was sworn on or after 13 April 2015,it is an offence for a
member of the jury to:
-research the case he or she is trying during the trial period for reasons
connected to that case(s.20A Juries Act 1974);

-intentionally disclose information to another member of the jury that

had been obtained by research in contravention of the previous section
(s.20A) and the information has not been provided by the court
(s.20B Juries Act 1974);

-intentionally engage in conduct, during the trial period, from which it

may reasonably be concluded that the person intends to try the issue
otherwise than on the basis of the evidence presented in the
proceedings on the issue (s.20C Juries Act 1974). This is 'prohibited
conduct';
 Jury Reforms: Criminal Justice &
Courts Act 2015
-intentionally disclose information about statements made, opinions
expressed, arguments advanced, or votes cast by members of a jury
in the course of their deliberations in proceedings before a court, or to
solicit or obtain such information (sections 20D, 20E, 20F and 20G
Juries Act 1974). (This covers the same conduct as s.8 of the
Contempt of Court Act 1981, which is no longer to have effect in
England and Wales).
 Jury Reforms: Criminal Justice &
Courts Act 2015
Section 69 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 inserts a
new s.15A into the Juries Act 1974 and gives judges the
discretionary power to order jurors to surrender their electronic
communications devices for a period of time while on jury service.
It will be a contempt of court to fail to surrender their devices in
accordance with a direction to do so. Section 70 inserts a new
s.54A into the Courts Act 2003 and gives a court security officer
the power to search a juror (if ordered to do so by a judge) and
seize such a device.

Sentencing
The above offences are indictable and the maximum penalty is 2
(two) years' imprisonment and/or a fine.
 Appeals?
Criminal trials
- Acquittal by jury -X appeal
-Def convicted of indictable offence may
Appeal to COA Criminal Division or
Criminal Cases Review Commission
(assess whether convictions shld be
refered to COA)
Civil trials
- can appeal if Perverse verdict
 Alternatives?
- Special Juries -qualified experts or
jurors -competency test
-Judge-run trials -single trained judge
-panel of J + experts
-Special Juror – 11 ordinary + 1 expert
-Bench of judges
-Single judge