LA1 - Juries

Basic qualifications:

• 18-70yrs
• Must be enroled
• Must've lived in the UK for 5 yrs +

Unable to sit for the following reasons:

• Mentally disordered/ disability (deafness), Criminal Justice Act 2003
• Disqualified,10 yrs -  bail, community service etc.. Permantly - imprisoned for life, extended sentance etc...
• Excusal - armed forces
• Discretionary excusal - work (doctor), too ill, important matter (wedding)

Criminal Courts:

• Panel of 12 jurors
• Usually at Crown Court
• Find verdict

Coroner's Court:

• Panel of 7-11 jurors
• find cause of death

Civil Courts:

• Panel of 12 jurors (high court) and 8 Jurors (county court)
• High and County Court
• Find Liability and damages

• Under the Abdrikof case 2007, lawers and PC can now do jury service. Before these types of professionals were banned but this was abolished under the Criminal Justice Act 2003. However, if 2 PC from the same station, likewise 2 lawyers from the same practice, one being on jury service and the other being a witness or advocating, the PC or Lawyer on jury service must excuse him/herself

• In 2004, the Lord Chief Justice oversaw a judge on jry service and set out guidelines for judges on jury service. Judges must be a private citizen whilst on jury service, must excuse himself if he/she knows the fellow judge and he/she must at all times follow the jury rules set out. It is up to the individual judge to reveal himself as a judge to the other jurors.

YES! If asked this question, put down qualifications and abdrikof case!

However:

• Whilst doctors, lawyers, PC etc.. can be on jury service, the trial could seem biased in a sense of their expertise can lead the individual to having a biased approached to their verdict. This occured in the Abdrikof Case and now lawyers and judges are given advice to act as general citizens.

The D and/or P lawyers can challenge the panel of jury to the clerk before they are sworn in the box. These challenges include:

• To the array - challenging the whole jury which appears to be biased, R v Frazer
• To the cause - Challenging the individual juror, R v Wilson
• Right to stand by jurors - where P only challenges to use on of the extra jurors on the list instead of another one, however, this is used sparingly!

Advantages: 

• Public confidence - democracy
• New qualification - representation of general society
• Jury equity 'fairness' - pointings case
• Open system of justice
• Secrecy of jury room - secrecy act 1911
• Impartiality

Disadvantages:

• High acquittal rates
• Unpopular
• Perverse verdicts
• Jury 'nobbling'
• Biased - Sander V UK 

R v McKenna - Importance of the seperation of jury

Ward v James- stopped jury in personal injury cases

H v MOD- reinforced Ward v James ruling

ABDRIKOF- 

R v Sheffield CC ex parte Brownlow- police vetting of jurors was unauthorised

R v Mason- but the judge said that police vetting was fine

R v Kronlid- example case of perverse verdict

Sander v UK- example case of racial bias in jury, HR article 6!