The Role of Jury in Justice System of England - Literature review Example

The Jury system The jury system was imported into Britain just after the Norman Conquest, though it functioned differently those days than today. Early jurors in England provided information on local affairs as witnesses. Gradually they became to be used as adjudicators in criminal and civil disputes. Under Henry II the functions of the jury moved from reporting on events they knew about to deliberating on the evidence that was produced by both parties in the disputes. Later, it was agreed that the juror should know as little as possible about the case before trial so as to give a fair judgment without bias which the position is still held today (MacDonald 33). The jury is a fundamental part of English judicial system, though few cases are decided by jury these days. It ensures that the judicial system works for the public’s benefit and not to benefit unjust leaders. It promotes not only a healthy society but also a healthy criminal justice system, where political leaders cannot silence their opponents by abusing the criminal justice system. Though it plays an important role, the constitutional position of the Britain’s jury is vulnerable as it is not written in the constitution (Michaels & Laura 54). The jury in criminal cases Although juries play a significant role in criminal justice system, they usually deal with minor cases. The criminal cases are usually divided into three categories. “Summary” offences are the minor ones and are less serious in nature and are tried only in magistrate’s court. “Indictable only” is the most serious kind of offences while “triable either way” are the ones found between the serious offences and minor ones. The triable either way as indicated can be tried either in magistrate’s court or crown court (Towl & David 34). Majority of criminal cases are summary because they are commonly committed because they are least in nature and are listened in the magistrate’s court where the jury has no role. The other few remaining cases in crown court, the defendants either plead guilty and there is no need for a jury or a judge informs the jury that the law demands the judge to acquit the defendant. Therefore, cases heard by the jury are very few when compared to the total number of cases brought before court. Juries in civil cases The removal of the juries in civil cases was slowly and it might gave started in the mid nineteenth century, when judges were given authority to refuse a case be heard in front of a jury but by a sole judge. This led to the use of jury almost obsolete. The Supreme Court gives qualified jury right to the four cases only: libel and slander; malicious prosecution; false imprisonment; and fraud. In these cases jury trial is granted unless the court is of a contrary opinion (Joyce 65).  Electing and Summoning jurors Before the year 2000, the jurors were selected by the summoning officer at each court center but a center for summoning has now been established at Black friars crown court. The bureau operates nationally and selects at random names from the electoral register from the computer, taking into account how many jurors are needed in each area. Then it is responsible for summoning and dealing with applications for referral and excusal. The people that were selected through the random selection process receive summons to attend crown court at specific time. The jury from each case will be selected from the panel consisting of people summoned, that is if the defendant has not pleaded guilty. The 12 jury members are selected from the jury panel by ballot, conducted in court. After opportunity for being challenged, the jury is sworn as the trial begins. Jury Challenges The chance for the defense to have a hand in influencing the people who composed the jury was removed in 1988 when peremptory challenge was removed completely. In contrast, the right of the prosecution to stand jurors is still unchanged. Both the sides have the right in challenging for cause, but in practice are of limited use.  Challenging for cause Both parties are entitled to challenge any one of them or all the jurors for cause. The fact that a juror gets disqualified or is ineligible would present grounds for challenge, but may also be challenged based on bias. The test for bias was passed by House of Lords in case that was between Porter v Magill. The Race issue Since random selection principle is at the heart of the jury system, therefore the jurors are generally not selected on the basis of ethnic origin or gender. In 2001 review, Lord Justice Auld, recommended that in the cases of racial sensitivity, there should be a modified procedure of selection that ensured that up to three jurors were chosen from minority ethnics. This proposal was rejected by the government. Prosecution right of stand-by a juror The prosecution was always entitled to a right to ask that a juror ‘stand by for the Crown'. In this scenario, the juror returns into the pool and may be called in theory again for his/her services, in the event the case pool runs out (Lucardie 52). The prosecution in this scenario can thus defer having to show cause until the pool is exhausted. The obvious situation where this form of challenge may be used is in connection with jury vetting. Jury vetting The practice of vetting jury started in 1978 when it was discovered in an official secrets trial that the vetted names of the jury panel by the prosecution in order to know those who could have been disloyal. The guidelines currently used on the practice date back to 1988 and allow two types of check. The first deals with checking the checking of potential jurors’ names against police records and the second one involves making authorized checks against special branch records and security services (MacDonald 76). The personal consent of the attorney general is the only one that can authorize checks on national security and terrorism. If information about the juror which is of concern is revealed by the checks, then it becomes the concern of the prosecutor, Director of Public Prosecution, whereby a case which may seek to exclude that individual by requesting him or her to ‘stand –by ‘for the crown. The discretion of the judge to discharge the jury The 1994Act gives powers to a judge to discharge an individual from jury service, in the case where there are solid doubts about her/his capacity to act as a juror, as a result of language difficulties or disability of physique (Edward). A person may be discharged by a judge, if he is unsuitable to undertake jury services due to illiteracy or who the cause of challenge might be subject to him. In section 16 Juries, an Act of 74, an individual can also be discharged once a trial has commenced because of he/she has been taken ill or it has become clear that he/she may be biased (Joyce 44). Advantages The jury has been identified with some advantages in their working programs. Some of these include the fact that they provide certainty in a case as there is no retrial but it applies to serious crimes only, retrial being always available in tainted cases, public have always formed a positive acceptability of jury decisions, in case there is a ‘rogue’ juror the majority verdicts allow justice, it is independent of the judiciary and executive hence giving just judgments, the presence of the judge enables him to correct any unfairness in the array (Lucardie 87). Several other advantages are associated with the jury that has become the public representative. Disadvantages As much as the jury is supported and appreciated by the majority of the population, they have been linked with some disadvantages in their working programs including being inconsistent throughout the country, it is slow as some cases like fraud can take even months to get cleared, they can be easily influenced by impressive judges or barristers, they lack insufficient intellect on issues regarding law (Edward 33), some jurors are affected by some horrific cases that they have to sit through their hearing, the jury they never understand fully the burden of proof in a given case (Michaels & Merlington 89). Though some of these disadvantages exist, it has been acknowledged that most of the cases that jurors gave a judgment, they were fairly ruled. The jury continues to take part in the judicial system making rulings on some of the cases presented to them. Though their powers continue to be minimized they still hold an integral part in the judicial system in large. They form part of the public policing group and provides a link between the public and the judicial system. Works Cited Edward cole. Jury on trial:New law journal. 17 May 2012. Doi. http://www.newlawjournal.co.uk/nlj/content/jury-trial Joyce, Peter. Criminal Justice: An Introduction. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis, 2013. Print. Lucardie, Paul. Democratic Extremism in Theory and Practice: All Power to the People. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis, 2013. Print. MacDonald, Todd. The Jury System. Mosman: IMinds, 2009. Print. Michaels, Fern, and Laural Merlington. The Jury. Grand Haven, MI: Brilliance Audio, 2006. Print. Towl, Graham J, and David A. Crighton. Forensic Psychology. Chichester, West Sussex: BPS Blackwell, 2010. Print. Read More