Advantages and Disadvantages of Jury System in UK Criminal Justice System

0 | P a g e
Criminology

1 | P a g e
The Criminal Justice System is referred to system in which partnership is constructed
between police, courts, the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice, the Attorney General’s
office and other agencies. All these agencies work together to evaluate different cases
involving violation of criminal laws and provide justice to victims (Roberts, 2018). In the case
of the United Kingdom, the judgement in criminal cases is given based on a jury system. A
jury system or jury trial is referred to a lawful proceeding in which the jury makes a decision
or findings of fact in a particular case. There are various advantages and disadvantages of
adopting a jury system for providing justice in criminal cases which affects the parties of
case and the criminal justice system. The aim of this essay is to evaluate what are the key
advantages and disadvantages relating to the jury system in the UK Criminal Justice System.
A jury is a key part of the criminal justice system in the UK which is referred to a group of
individuals who sit on the bench to listen and evaluate the evidence to determine whether
the defendant is guilty or not. The Jury Act 1974 provides key provisions regarding
governance of juries which is amended by the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Frank and Bix,
2017). The key advantage of the jury system in the UK is that it assists in providing a final,
clear answer or decision to the case which did not require retrial. Although recent reforms
in the UK have changed the system of retail in those cases which are decided through a jury,
however, it is only the case for serious crimes. The criminal justice process in the UK begins
with reporting of a crime. After a crime is reported, the police decide to investigate the case
and find evidence in order to prepare a strong case against the offender. These evidence
must be enough to charge someone with the crime. After filing a suit in the court, the
evidence is evaluated in front of the jury which assists them in making a decision. Thus, a
long process is fulfilled by the parties when deciding a case through a jury which removes
uncertainty from the case and the decision (Pakes, 2017). A jury system increases public
confidence in the judicial process which is fundamental of a democratic society.
Deciding a case through a jury requires a significant amount of time in which the jury hear
and evaluate all the evidence which is present before the court. After completing this
process, the jury members joined together in order to determine whether the presented
evidence are enough to hold the defendant liable for the case. Since the judgement is given
based on the element of natural justice and equity, the confidence of the public is more in
the case of a jury trial (Brooks, 2017). It assists in evaluating the evidence more thoroughly

2 | P a g e
since they are determined by many people who have different perspectives rather than a
single judge who had a single perspective. It also highlights another benefit of the jury
system which is that it assists in evaluating the case from different perspectives which
makes the judgement more effective and fair which is the ultimate objective of the justice
system.
A jury is formed with ‘normal’ citizens that mean that they apply general values while
deciding a particular case. These individuals are not related with either party of the case,
and they make their judgement based on the evaluation of the facts of the case. Since the
decisions are based on rational facts rather than emotions or any other pressure, it avoids
biases from the decision (Cockburn and Green, 2014). It promotes an open system of justice
which is not only available for judges. In a jury system, the lawyers clearly explain laws to
the jury members that assist the general public in understanding and following the
procedure. It also allows the general public to take part in the administration of justice
which ensures that it is not only limited to judges. The secrecy of the jury room is
maintained in this system which is not influenced by outside pressure (Gardner, 2012). The
jury equity is another important factor which ensures that all the jury members must agree
to a specific statement, and they must decide the case based on fairness and not the word
of law.
However, along with many benefits of using a jury in the criminal justice system of the UK,
there are many disadvantages present as well. A key disadvantage of the jury system is that
it takes a long time to complete a trial to ensure that all jury members are available along
with witnesses of the case (Marder, 2017). Both civil and criminal cases can be decided by a
jury; however, there are only few cases where jury is used by the court. They are used by
the High Court, Crown Court and Coroners’ Courts in specific situations. Juries are used in
less than one percent cases; the Magistrate Court and the Crown Court generally determine
whether a defendant is guilty or not in 97 percent cases (Robertson, 2015). It shows that the
use of juries in criminal cases has reduced significantly in the past few decades. There are
frequent cases involving jury nobbling which lead to wrongful acquittal, and it shows a
major defect with the jury system in the UK.