Wilson et al: English Legal System Directions 
Practical examples
Test bankWilson et al: English Legal System Directions
Trial by Jury
Question
'The jury plays a vital role in our courts, providing a link between the ordinary members of society and the criminal justice system. In this context, the reforms to the rules governing the ineligibility and entitlement to excusal of jurors in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 should be warmly welcomed.'
Discuss.
Answer Guidance
This answer requires explanation of the function of jury trials in the criminal justice system, discussion of the advantages of jury trial over alternative methods, explanation of the rules governing the ineligibility and entitlement to excusal of juror and the changes to those rules in the 2003 Act, and then discussion of the merits of those changes.
Answers should therefore explain the role of jury trials in the criminal justice system – as a means of allowing 12, randomly-selected members of the public to decide upon the guilt or innocence of the accused in a Crown Court trial. Answers may include comment on the fact that juries are only used in some 2% of trials but it should also be acknowledged that these are, generally speaking, trials of the more serious crimes – murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery and so on.
Answers should discuss the advantages of jury trial, i.e. public involvement, 'jury equity' (the power that a jury has to return a not guilty verdict in defiance of the law as in R v Ponting – seen by some as a 'bulwark of civil liberties'), the separation of responsibility between judge and jury, etc.
Answers should also discuss disadvantages of jury trial, i.e. , 'jury equity' (seen by some as a means of undermining Parliament in an arbitrary, ad hoc way –Penny Darbyshire, for one, has written on this topic), the problems caused by jurors with prejudices (e.g. R v Misra; Sander v UK), various irregularities that occur and which sometimes generate appeals (e.g. R v Young).
Answers should explain the rules on ineligibility and automatic excusal prior to the CJA 2003, and discuss the reasons why (for example), judges, magistrates, lawyers, the police' and the clergy were ineligible and why MPs, doctors, and members of the armed forces were entitled to automatic excusal.
Answers should then explain the changes in CJA 2003, i.e. abolition of most categories of ineligibility and automatic excusal, whilst retaining discretionary excusal. Answers should discuss the key case of R v Abdroikov & Others (2007) where the House of Lords analyses the changes to ineligibility. As the House was split 3:2 there are arguments on both sides that can be used. The majority look at the potential conflict between the CJA 2003 changes and the human rights of the accused – the right to a fair trial. The minority take the view that the CJA 2003 changes are designed to make juries more representative, and also point out that when police officers and lawyers sit as jurors they do so as individuals, not in their professional capacity.
View print version