Trial by a jury of peers is considered to be the cornerstone of British justice. Some see trial by jury as the only way that a person accused of a criminal offence can be tried fairly and justly.
The randomness of selection can also mean that jurors have varying degrees of education and life experience and while they represent the views of the ‘common man’ sometimes they lack the insight and understanding required for some trials. An example would be complicated fraud trials where the evidence presented In the words of Lord Denning: “Twelve persons selected at random may relate to a series of complex financial transactions. In some are likely to be a cross-section of the people as a whole, and thus trials, juries are required to consider volumes of documentary represent the views of the common man. It will be argued that exhibits or consider complex scientific evidence. This raises questions of whether jurors get bogged down in the detail or rely on such a view is one which is reasonable and therefore just.” the judge’s direction to decide cases of such magnitude. And in 1956 Lord Devlin wrote: “Trial by jury is more than an instrument of justice and more than a wheel of the constitution; it is It could also be argued that the easy access to the internet is undermining the work of juries. There have also been recent cases of the lamp that shows freedom lives.” jurors using the internet to gain further information about a crime But is this true of the 21st century jury system? or case, evidenced in R v Fraill (2011). In this case, a serving juror Juries play a vital role in the criminal justice system in England and contacted a defendant and gave details of jury deliberations as Wales, but the constitutional position of the English jury is vulner- well as conducting internet searches into the trial. Fraill was senable because the country does not have a written constitution. tenced to eight months in custody. In Attorney General v Davey This means that any Government could alter or abolish the right and Beard (2013), juror Beard conducted an internet search into to trial by jury. However, the Juries Act was introduced in 1974 as the defendant and revealed his finding to other jurors. Fellow juror Davey posted a message on Facebook, which stated: “Woooow, I the main statute governing present day juries. wasn’t expecting to be in a jury deciding a paedophile’s fate. I’ve Individuals accused of indictable offences go to crown court to be always wanted to fuck up a paedophile and now I’m within the law.” tried by a jury, but those accused of a triable either-way offence This case also supports the argument that juries can be swayed can chose whether to have their case heard at the magistrates’ by two or three strong-minded individuals or those who have a court or crown court. Those who opt for this method would per- bias for or against certain groups. haps prefer to be tried by a random selection of society than a panel of magistrates who come from a smaller social pool. It might There is also the argument that cases can be upsetting and emoalso be that a jury, with 12 men and women aged between 18 and tional or jurors can be vulnerable to external pressures such as 75, is larger than a panel of magistrates and that means that the threats, violence, intimidation or bribery, as evidenced in the case prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt to a of R v McKenna when a judge put a jury under pressure to reach larger number of people. This could mean that the accused has a verdict and they did so within 10 minutes. a greater chance of acquittal if tried by jury. This perception is But what is the alternative if an individual is not tried by a ransupported by statistical evidence showing acquittal rates of apdom selection of 12 of their peers? One option could be a ‘profesproximately 40% in jury trials compared with 25% in magistrates’ sional jury’ consisting of individuals who have been trained and courts. But this an expensive way to get justice with the cost of adequately understand the legal concepts contained in a trial operating a crown court courtroom standing at £30,000 per day. so are able to make an informed decision on guilt or innocence. Schedule 1, part 1 of the Juries Act 1974, as amended by the Juries However, a professional jury would not be a random cross-section Disqualification Act 1984, identifies four categories of people who of society: it would be a selection from a small pool of professionare ineligible to for jury service. They are: the judiciary, members als. This is also the case for the notion of state-appointed juries, of the legal profession and others who are concerned with the which would not have the impartiality and lack of accountability administration of justice e.g. the Probation Service and the Crown that a lay jury has. Prosecution Service, members of the clergy and mentally ill. The jury system is an essential safeguard to individual freedoms Jurors are selected at random from the Electoral Register and and ensures that decision-making over guilt or innocence is untherein lies the first problem. There is an increasing number of dertaken by an individual’s peers. That said, complex trials such as people who are not registered to vote – particularly those from complicated fraud cases are the fly in the ointment despite them low socio-economic backgrounds – therefore a jury could never only comprising a small proportion of the crown court caseload. be truly representative of society as a whole. In his 2001 ‘Review Is it safe for jurors who feel overwhelmed by the complexity of the of Criminal Courts’, Lord Justice Auld concluded that despite re- evidence to be asked to decide guilt or innocence? There is an forms, juries still lacked diversity and were not sufficiently repre- argument for jurors to receive training before undertaking such trials. But for most cases, jury trial remains the fairest option. sentatives of the communities from which they were drawn.
09