Home > Law essays > What role do jurors play in a trial and how important are they?

Essay: What role do jurors play in a trial and how important are they?

Essay details and download:

  • Subject area(s): Law essays
  • Reading time: 9 minutes
  • Price: Free download
  • Published: 17 June 2021*
  • File format: Text
  • Words: 2,618 (approx)
  • Number of pages: 11 (approx)

Text preview of this essay:

This page of the essay has 2,618 words. Download the full version above.

The jury is considered a fundamental part in the English Legal System. In the Crown Court, a trial cannot be thought of without the jurors being present. This essay will explore the importance of the jury system and the role the jurors play within the court system. It will also consider the advantages and disadvantages of the jury system. From there on, a conclusion will be drawn towards the end.
Historically, the jury system was imported to Britain after the Norman conquest in 1066. The right for a man to be punished only pursuant to ‘the lawful judgement of his equals’ is enshrined in the Magna Carta of 1215 which lays down our democratic right. However, the functions of the jury have changed significantly over the years. The first jurors acted as witnesses. Later on, Henry II (1133-89), the jury began to take on an important Judicial function. The Juries Act 1974 is now the main Act that now governs the jury trial.
Juries normally sit in criminal cases but are able to sit in limited civil cases (i.e. libel). The Jury is considered an important part of the English Legal System. They play a vital role in ensuring that the Criminal Justice System works for the benefit of the public. This has implications not just for a healthy criminal justice system but also for a healthy society. Lord Devlin wrote in 1956 “Trial by Jury is more than an instrument of justice and more than one wheel of constitution; it is the lamp that shows that freedom lives.” The jury contains 12 members of the public as they sit in a box one side of the judge. The 12 jurors in a case are selected from a number of people who have been called to take part in the jury service that day.
In order to become a juror and take part in the justice system, there are many requirements that need to be met in order for an individual to be able to become a potential juror. Some of these are; being aged 18-75, on the electoral register, resident in the UK, Channel Islands or Isle of Man for at least five years since the age of 13, not a mentally disordered person, not being disqualified from any jury service. People can be disqualified or excused from the jury service due to age, residency, mental disability, criminal record, language or medical reasons.
Judges decide the law, but jurors decide the facts. The judge directs the jury on the relevant law and the jurors then have to apply the law to the facts that is found and thereby reach a verdict. In other words, the jurors have to weigh up the evidence and decide what the true facts of the case are. A judge in a jury trial can give directions at any time which help the jurors to evaluate the evidence they hear. If it is a criminal case and the jury has given a verdict of guilty, the judge will then decide on the appropriate sentence. When reaching a verdict, the jury is only entitled to consider the evidence that arose in court, nothing else. R v F (2009), the conviction was quashed on appeal because two members of a jury were seen talking to a law student who had been watching the trial. The reason for the conviction being quashed was that there was a likelihood of a risk that the jury might have been influenced by evidence not heard in court. On the other hand, in civil cases, when jurors decide the fact, the judge can be asked to decide the amount of damages.
There are many advantages of the jury system. Some of these are: Firstly; it allows the ordinary citizens to take part in the administration of justice, so that verdicts are seen to be those of the society rather than of the judicial system, satisfy the long-standing constitutional tradition of judgement by one’s peers. Lord Denning described the jury service as giving “ordinary folk their finest lesson in citizenship.” The jury system allows many individuals in the public to gain more knowledge on the legal system and gain a better understanding on how justice is given. The research carried on 361 jurors by the Home Office found that more than half (55 per cent) said that they would be happy to do it again. About two-thirds felt that the experience had boosted their opinion of the jury system and they were impressed by the professionalism and helpfulness of the court staff as well as the performance of the Judge. Making the right decision for justice to be served in court is important. This will help jurors understand how their decision makes a massive impact to the outcome of the case. As jurors are randomly selected, it gives anyone an opportunity to be able to take part.
Secondly, the jury system adds certainty to the law, for it gives a general verdict which cannot give rise to misinterpretation. In a criminal case, jurors simply state that the accused is guilty or not guilty. They are not supposed to give reasons. As a result, the decision is not open to dispute or subject to appeal.
Thirdly, jurors are able to judge the facts according to their conscious. As a result, they can be seen as a vital protection against oppressive or politically motivated prosecutions, and as a kind of safety valve for those cases where the law demands a guilty verdict. For example, in R v Kronlid (1996) in the face of clear evidence, the defendants had caused the damage, they were widely expected to be convicted. But the jury found them all not guilty.
However, it can be argued that jurors are never actually told that they can acquit if their consciences suggest so. In fact, their instructions are quite the opposite. Even before the case begins, they must swear to try the case according to the evidence. Nor do they give reasons for their decisions. So, there is no way of knowing how often jurors acquit defendants out of a sense of justice, even though they know that the law demands a guilty verdict.
There are, however, many disadvantages to the jury system. Some of them are: Firstly, jurors may have of lack understanding in making appropriate decisions. As jurors are not required to be fully educated in the court system, they may not have the knowledge/competence in making appropriate decisions. Lord Denning argued that the selection of jurors is too wide, resulting in jurors that are not competent to perform their task. He claimed that the 1972 changes have led to jurors being summoned who are not satisfactorily intellectual or sophisticated to accomplish their task properly. A piece of research commissioned by Roskill Committee on fraud trials concluded that jurors who found difficulty in comprehending the complex issues involved in fraud prosecution were more likely to acquit.
They suggested that the jurors characterised their own confusions as a form of ‘reasonable doubt’ leading them to a decision to acquit. Furthermore, Baldwin and McConville’s 1976 study (Jury Trials) examined five hundred cases, both convictions and acquittals, and found up to 25% of acquittals were questionable (as well as 5% of convictions), and concluded that, given the serious nature of the cases concerned, this was a problem. They described trial by jury as ‘an arbitrary and unpredictable business.’
However, there are logics for jury trial even in serious fraud cases. An American lawyer interviewed all the judges who had tried a fraud case prosecuted by the Serious Fraud Office over a year period. There were unanimously in favour of jury trials of serious fraud cases and did not want them to be replaced by the judge alone trials. As one judge observed:
“I have no reason to doubt that Juries understand the issues in serious fraud cases…… fundamentally we are talking about honestly and dishonesty. That’s very well suited to the jury trial process.”
Secondly, jurors can be easily impacted/influenced negatively by outside influences, for they are ordinary members of the public and do not have special training to be protected from outside influences. Furthermore, jurors are not paid for participating in courts, although they do receive a modest daily allowance. This might encourage them to be influenced by financial factors.
Thirdly, it can produce the “perverse verdicts” problem, for it is a matter of the fact that jurors acquit proportionately more defendants, approximately twice, than magistrates do. A research from the Home Office Planning Unit suggest that an acquittal is approximately twice as likely in a jury trial. Many critics of the jury system argue that this is a major concern on the part of the jurors, arising either from their inability to perform their role properly or from their sympathy with defendants or both. Others could argue that apparently perverse verdicts are frequently just the jurors deciding the case according to their conscious.
However, Zander points out that the high rate of acquittals must be seen in the light of the high number of guilty pleas in the Crown Court. It must be noted that many acquittals are directed or ordered by the judge. According to evidence from the Lord Chancellor’s Department to the Runciman Commission, 40% of all acquittals in 1991 were ordered by the judge because the prosecution offered no evidence at the start of the trial. A further 16% of the acquittals were directed by the judge after the prosecution had made their case as there was insufficient evidence to be left to the Jury. Thus, the jury were only responsible for 41% of the acquittals, which was merely 7% of all cases in the Crown Court.
Fourthly, jurors need to be careful when taking part in the court system as they have many duties and responsibilities in which they need to uphold. Any mistakes they make can be heavily negatively impacted on themselves as well as any trial. This is why knowing the rules within the court system is very important for Jurors to know so they know their limits and do not break any rules. Lack of understanding in this may lead to very serious consequences. This can be, for example, influencing one’s decision. One case which represents the importance of jurors knowing the importance as well as the rules in the court system is Her Majesty’s Attorney General v Theodora Dallas. In this case, the juror was a University lecturer that was jailed for six months for researching on the criminal defendant while she was serving on jury. Moreover, after finding information out about the defendant, she had revealed this to the members of the jury. This had caused the Judge to stop the case as the discovery of what had happened. Consequently, an article explained as:
“The case highlights the growing problem courts face in ensuring jurors do not use the internet to investigate cases in an era when looking facts up on a computer seems an increasingly natural instinct.”
This is a clear example of jurors making mistakes that can lead to major consequences. Whilst being a juror, Dallas had gone against the given direction from the Judge and went ahead and researched about the defendant on the internet, leading to clearly acknowledge her findings given verbal instruction to not research their cases on the internet, the defendants as well as anyone who was involved in the trial. There was also a notice in the jury waiting room. It had enclosed a warning saying;
“You may also be in contempt of court if you use the internet to research details about any cases you hear along with any cases listed for trial at the Court …”
Playing a part in the court system as a juror holds a massive role and going against any of the rules can land anyone in a dangerous position. The warning sign emphasises the fact that using the internet to research about any cases that jurors have heard or even listed for trial at the court can be seen as a serious offence of ignoring the rules of the court as well as being disobedient towards the court system.
Fifthly, it could be argued that the jurors may be biased for and against certain groups – for example, they may favour attractive members of the opposite sex or be prejudiced against the Police in case of malicious prosecution or false imprisonment (and of course, some jurors may also be biased towards the Police and other figures of authority such as custom officers, local government enforcement officers. In addition, biased appears to be a particular problem in libel cases, where jurors prejudiced against news paper’s award huge damages, apparently using them punitive rather than as compensation for the victim.
For example, the £500,000 awarded to Jeffrey Archer in 1987 and the £300,000 to Koo Stark a year later as well as Sutcliff v Pressdram Ltd (1990) in which Private Eye was ordered to pay £600,000 to the wife of Yorkshire Ripper.
In the latter case, Lord Donaldson described the award as irrational and suggested that judges should give more guidance on the amount to be awarded. Consequently, the Courts and Legal Services Act 1919 was passed allowing the Court of Appeal to reduce damages where considered excessive.
Lastly, it may be argued that jury panel may not have racially balanced. Black defendants have no right to have black people sitting in the jury. In R v Bansal (1985) the case involved an Anti-National Front demonstration and the trial judge ordered that the jury should be drawn from an area with a large Asian population. However, this approach was rejected as wrong in R v Ford (1989) . The Court of Appeal held that race could not be taken into account when selecting jurors and that a judge could not discharge jurors in order to achieve a racially representative jury as this would undermine the principle that juries should be randomly selected.
However, research found that there is today no significant under-representation of black and minority ethnic groups (BME) among those summoned for jury service. The process of computerised random summoning from electoral lists provided by local authorities is successfully reaching an ethnically representative group of potential jurors in almost every court. In most courts there is no significant difference between the proportion of BME jurors serving and the BME population levels in the juror catchment area for each court.
In conclusion, having considered the advantages and disadvantages it could be said that the jurors play an important role in our judicial system. They are the judges of facts. Their duty is to listen to, and weigh up, the evidence in order to decide what the true facts are. The judge directs the jury as to the relevant law, and the jury then applies it to the facts to reach a verdict. Thus, they satisfy the constitutional tradition of judgement by one’s peers. Although jurors decide approximately only 1% of criminal cases and a very small number of civil cases, they still make an important and vital contribution in our adversarial Justice System. I echo Lord Justice Auld who said:
‘The jury is often described as “the jewel in the Crown” or “the corner stone” of the British Criminal Justice System. It is a hallowed institution which, because of its ancient origin and involvement of 12 randomly selected lay people in the criminal process, commands much public confidence.’

Bibliography

Elliott, Catherine/Quinn, Frances/Albon, Emily, English Legal System, 19th Edition
Baldwin, J. and McConville, M. (1979) Jury Trials. Oxford: Clarendon.
Denning, A. (1982) What Next in the Law? London: Butterworths.
Devlin, P. (1956) Trial by Jury. London: Stevens.
Ahmed N Contemporary Issues on British Law and Politics. (2002)
Auld, Sir R. (2001) Review of the Criminal Courts. London: HMSO
Major, W T, Basic English Law 1990.

...(download the rest of the essay above)

About this essay:

If you use part of this page in your own work, you need to provide a citation, as follows:

Essay Sauce, What role do jurors play in a trial and how important are they?. Available from:<https://www.essaysauce.com/law-essays/what-role-do-jurors-play-in-a-trial-and-how-important-are-they/> [Accessed 29-03-24].

These Law essays have been submitted to us by students in order to help you with your studies.

* This essay may have been previously published on Essay.uk.com at an earlier date.