LEGAL SYSTEM AND METHOD

THE JURY SYSTEM

Q.1 Juries, through their collective decision-making, are excellent fact-finder s. It is not
surprising that the public trust juries.’ Describe the role of juries in the English legal
system and discuss the reasons for and against the abolition of juries.

Ans: The jury is made up of 12 ordinary individuals who are chosen at random and
tasked with weighing the evidence and determining the genuine facts of the case. Even
if the judge disagrees with the jury verdict (Bushell's Case), the judge must accept it.
The judge's responsibility is to instruct the jury on the applicable law, and the jury must
then apply the law to the facts discovered in order to reach a majority verdict: Criminal
Justice Act 1967. When there is insufficient evidence to convict an accused person,
judges have the authority to instruct jurors to acquit them. Judges, on the other hand, do
not have the authority to order juries to convict: DPP v Stonehouse: R v Wang. If the
case is a criminal one and the jury has returned a guilty verdict, the judge will determine
the appropriate sentencing. The role of juries in civil trials is to determine how much
money should be awarded in damages.

Following the Morris Committee Report on Jury Service in 1972, the qualifications for
jury service were altered.
The Juries Act of 1974 (as modified) stipulates that a person must meet the following
criteria in order to serve on a jury: Between the ages of 18 and 70 as a parliamentary or
local government elector, you must be registered. Ordinarily resident in the United
Kingdom, the Channel Islands, or the Isle (small island of Man) for at least five years
since turning thirteen, and must not be: A individual who is mentally unwell or who is
ineligible to serve on a jury. Some criminal convictions prevent a person from serving on
a jury, such as life imprisonment or a sentence of five years or more in jail. Jury service
is mandatory, and failure to fulfill one's civic duty can result in a £1,000 fine. All
restricted categories of people were removed by the Criminal Justice Act of 2003.
Judges, lawyers, and police officers, for example, are all allowed to serve on juries (R v
Green and R v Williamson).
After the court clerk has chosen the panel of 12 jurors, the jurors are sworn in as jurors
in the jury box. Both the prosecution and the defense have specific rights to challenge
one or more jurors before the jury is sworn in. These are:
To the array: Section 5 of the Juries Act 1974 grants the ability to challenge the entire
jury on the grounds that it was selected in an unrepresentative or biased manner ( R v
Fraser).

For cause: This is when a juror's right to serve on the jury is challenged (R v Wilson and
R v Sprason).

The right of the prosecution to stand by jurors: this allows the prosecution to object to a
possible juror without having to give a cause.

Role of Jury in Criminal Cases:

Though jurors are symbolic in the criminal justice system, they are only used in 1% of all
criminal trials. Juries decide whether or whether an offense is indictable, such as
murder, manslaughter, or rape cases handled in the Crown Court. By making most
driving offenses and relatively small criminal damage charges summary only, the
Criminal Law Act of 1977 abolished the right to a jury trial in a considerable percentage
of cases. The Criminal Justice Act of 2003 strengthened magistrates' sentencing
powers. The purpose of expanding magistrates' sentencing powers was to encourage
more cases to be heard in magistrates' courts rather than being referred to the Crown
Court for a costly jury trial. Furthermore, the Criminal Justice Act of 2003 allows for a
judge-only trial in the Crown Court in two circumstances: if there is a high risk of jury
manipulation (s. 44) and where the case involves complex or long financial and
commercial arrangements (s. 43). Later, before it could take effect, the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012 removed section 43 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. In the case of
R v Twomey, where the trial had been terminated after six months when two jurors had
been approached, the first Crown Court trial without a jury was ordered in England and
Wales under s. 44. The first study, which was unsuccessful, had cost £22 million.

The expense of providing proper protection to a fresh jury would have been £1.5 million.
In those circumstances, the Court of Appeal determined that s. 44 applied, and the trial
was ordered to proceed without a jury. In the case of R v KS, on the other hand, it was
determined that even when there was jury tampering, the judge should not proceed to
hear the matter alone.

Role of Jury in Civil cases:

In civil matters, juries are now only employed in very limited instances (less than 1% of
the time). They determine if the claimant has proven his case, and if the claimant has
won the case, the jury next determines the amount of damages that the defendant
should pay the claimant. All common law lawsuits were tried by jury until 1854, when
the parties might agree not to use one, and their use gradually declined.

Then, in 1933, the Administration of Justice Act limited the authority to utilize a jury,
preventing jurors from being utilized in contract disputes. The current guidelines for
when juries can be utilized in civil matters are set forth in sections 69 of the Senior
Courts Act 1981 for proceedings in the High Court, and section 66 of the County Courts
Act 1984 for matters in that court.

Parties have the right to a jury trial only in the following sorts of matters, according to
these statutes: False imprisonment and defamation fraudulent prosecution and malice.
Even in these circumstances, the judge might refuse a jury trial if the matter involves
intricate papers, accounts, or scientific evidence and is thus deemed unfit for a jury trial
Aitken v Preston. In all other instances, including defamation suits brought under the
Defamation Act 2013, the court has the power to grant a jury trial. In Ward v James, the
Court of Appeal held that unless there were extraordinary circumstances, personal
injury cases should be tried by a single judge. An application for a jury trial of a personal
injury claim originating from the King's Cross underground fire was denied in Singh v
London Underground on the grounds that a case involving such broad themes and
technical matters was unsuitable for a jury.

Reform of the Jury System:

A variety of recommendations have been made to limit the role of juries or to eliminate
them entirely. Sir Robin Auld drafted significant reform ideas, but the former Labour
government rejected many of them. It introduced the Fraud (Trials without Jury) Bill,
which attempted to do away with juries in many fraud cases. The Bill was not passed
due to considerable opposition. Sir Robin Auld made a number of specific suggestions
to improve the jury's performance. The Auld Review (2001) advised that the prosecution
and defense attorneys submit a written summary of the case and the issues that
needed to be decided in order to help a jury in their deliberations. The judge would
agree on a summary of the case and problems, which would be distributed to the jurors
at the commencement of the trial. At the conclusion of the trial, the judge would
summarize the case by posing questions to the jury to ponder. During their
deliberations, juries would answer these questions to make a decision.
Sir Robin Auld advised that, when appropriate, the trial judge and the Court of Appeal
be given the authority to examine any alleged impropriety or failure in the jury's
decision-making process. One of the recommendations made by the Review of the
Criminal Courts was that judges should be empowered to swear in extra jurors in long
trials as necessary. Reserve jurors would be able to come in for jurors who couldn't
finish a case. The Commission for Racial Equality has stated that in the case of black
jurors, racial equality should be considered in specific circumstances. A
recommendation was also made that the jury use a single judge, as is the case in most
civil proceedings. This has the benefit of speeding up trials, lowering the likelihood of a
skewed verdict, and mitigating the problem of juror tripping. The Criminal Justice Act of
2003 secured a far more representative jury by allowing a variety of people who were
previously prohibited from serving as jurors to do so. Members of the legal profession,
for example, are now eligible to serve on juries, and their participation could assist a
panel function more quickly.
Many contend, however, that claims of bias are more likely to arise among jurors who
have received legal training or who have worked in the justice system. R v Abdrolkof
and Hanif and Khan v UK are two specific cases to highlight. On the other hand, it is
also plausible that black jurors cannot be chosen only to form an ethnically
representative jury; see R v Ford, where the court declined to swear in a multi-racial jury
on the defendant's request.

CONCLUSION
To summarize, the jury's job is to listen to the evidence and weigh it in order to
determine what the genuine facts are. These laws also empower juries to make
decisions based on their conscience, which, although allowing them to represent
modern ideals, can result in absurd verdicts like those in R v Kronlid, R v Ponting, and
R v Owen. One issue is that because jury deliberations are kept private, it is impossible
to determine how a jury arrived at its decision. Sir Robin Auld outlined ways in which
juries should be modified to lessen the chance of their disobeying the law, while others
believe that jury discretion is a crucial safety net for citizens who are subjected to unfair
laws.