Issues in Criminal Justice System | Report

Running head: ISSUES IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
JURIES SHOULD BE ABOLISHED IN CRIMINAL TRIALS
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Authors Note

1ISSUES IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
Introduction
Probably after the Norman Conquest, the thought of the jury system has been introduced
to the UK, although its initial functions are quite dissimilar from those of nowadays. If the pages
of the history are turned over, it can be observed that initially, the jurors in England performed
their duties as witnesses to provide sources of material information concerning local affairs.
However, they were eventually used in both civil and criminal proceedings as adjudicators.
Under Henry II, the jury panel started to play an important role from reporting on incidents
which they knew to debate proof provided by the disputing parties1. It was slowly agreed by
everyone related to the criminal justice system is that a juror must have to learn about the truth of
the cases as least as possible before the trial and a similar situation is observed nowadays. There
are two groups of individuals, one which supports the jury system and the other group which is
of the view that the jury system must be abolished from the criminal justice system.
This paper mainly focuses on the discussion of whether juries must be abolished in
criminal trials or not. While discussing the same it also sheds light on the various aspects related
to this system such as how this system functions, the role of juries in criminal cases, issues
related to juries, advantages and disadvantages of juries, and the impact of the Criminal Justice
and Courts Act 2015 in respect to juries.
Discussion
Before starting the discussion, it is important to discuss what the jury system is and how it
functions. The jury system is made up of twelve individuals who take decisions on matters of
fact both in criminal and civil cases. In the 800 years old system at the time of the development
1 Scott, J ‘From Presence to Participation - The Role of the Juror Reimagined’ (2017) 11(2) Law and Humanities
286-308.

2ISSUES IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
of this system, it was known as the dark ages and at that time the cases were examined by the
juries. The jury is asked to perform its duties when an accused pleads not guilty to a trial. The
Magna Carta 1215, clause 39, which provide for a trial, held the jury trial as a constitutional
right. Moreover, In the case of the R vs. Bushell2 case, it had been established by the court that
juries are independent in comparison to the judges. The judge must deal with the conviction of
the defendant if the plea is guilty. This service is regarded as a major civic or public
responsibility and the jury is supposed to be open-minded, rather than to make a decision based
on the information of the case. Individuals from the society worked as juries. The jury service is
controlled by the Juries Act, 1974 and the Criminal Justice Act of 2003. In a trial by jury, the
factual matters have been determined by juries and the law of questions have been determined by
the judges. Thus, the jury system functions in the following way:
Based on the factual matters a person is guilty or not is decided by a jury;
 For making decisions they must listen to the disputes and take note on proof and facts
represented;
 The certainty to the law has been by jurors;
 Juries need to be impartial and independent;
 They must not be influenced by any person as observed in Bushel’s Case3.
However, the provisions of the Juries Act, 1974 deals with the qualification of juries
whereas the Criminal Justice Act of 2003 deals with the ineligibility of jury services. Although
the use of juries is very small in the legal system still it is used in both civil and criminal cases.
The courts use juries for criminal proceedings in the Crown Court. A jury decides Less than 1%
2 R vs. Bushell [1670] vaugh 135 (CCCP)
3 Bushel’s Case [1670] 124 E.R

3ISSUES IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
of the criminal cases because 97% of the cases are handled by the Court of Magistrate and from
the cases which move to the Crown Court only two out of three convicted plead guilty. In Crown
Court, criminal cases are only tried by the juries but they do not have the power of sentencing.
From the role played by the juries in criminal cases, it is clear that juries are mainly used to
determine whether a defendant is guilty or innocent4. Numerous scholars are of the view that
juries help to open the legal system effectively. In Ward vs. James5 case, it had been decided by
the court that in case of exceptional circumstances the jury system will be used. The same view
has been upheld by the court in H vs. Ministry of Defence6 case.
Many scholars are of the view that the process of trial by jury has various advantages.
First of all, generally, a sympathetic hearing is delivered by a jury. As the jury is unfamiliar with
the so it is possible by a jury to provide an unbiased judgment. Secondly, common values of
honesty and dishonesty are applied by the juries. Thirdly, when a ‘rouge’ juror majority is ruled,
justice can be served7. This removes the fact that every juror has a bias or has a personal interest
in the court. Fourthly, an accused can elect a jury trial, which means that they have the
opportunity to obtain a fair trial. Fifthly, in the cases related to corruption under the Criminal
Procedure and Investigation Act, 19968 retrial is possible.
Moreover depending upon the advantages, several arguments have been made by people
in favour of the jury system which include:
 The jury is seen by the public as the ‘blueprint of the rights of individuals’;
4 Willmott, Dominic, Daniel Boduszek, and Nigel Booth. "The English jury on trial." (2017) Custodial Review 82:
12-14.
5 Ward vs. James (No. 2). [1966] 1 Q. B. 273
6 H vs. Ministry of Defence [1991] 2 QB 103
7 Davies, M, Croall, H, Tyrer, J, Davies, Croall and Tyrer on criminal justice (Pearson 2015) Ch 10.3.
8 The Criminal Procedure and Investigation Act, 1996, s 54

4ISSUES IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
 The opinions of the 12 jurors are better than the opinion given by a single judge because
it will avoid the individual prejudices;
 A lay jury has no good alternative; and
 It is possible to keep a proceeding simple by the presence of a jury9.
According to many scholars, the key advantage of the jury system is decisions can be
taken based on what appears to be right and not whether the offence is illegal or not. In the
famous case of R vs. Ponting10, a landmark judgment has been given by the jury. In this
particular case, some official secretive information had been revealed by Ponting but it had been
effectively argued by him that those secrets were revealed as it was important for the interest of
the nation. However, he had been released by the jury.
Initially, it is very hard to understand that why defendants choose the Crown Court over
the Magistrate Court, but research displays that there is a probability of greater acquittal if the
matter of dispute handles by the jury than the judge. This impression stems from statistical data
that indicates the rate of acquittal is nearly 40% injury hearings compared to 25% in the
Magistrate Courts.
It cannot be ignored that the jury system is regarded by the public as a cornerstone in the
criminal justice system. Due to its numerous advantages, defendants chose jurors in Crown
Court. During recent years, jury trials have been under attack despite its historic position in the
English legal system. For saving money, governments have sought to reduce the use of juries in
criminal proceedings. In some types of offences, the Criminal Law Act, 1977 prohibited jury
trial by summarizing several crimes and comparatively minor criminal cases. Since 1977, the
9 Coen, M, Heffernan, L, ‘Juror comprehension of expert evidence: a reform agenda’ [2010] Criminal Law Review
195.
10 R vs. Ponting [1985] Crim LR 318

5ISSUES IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
jury’s trial has been eliminated more cases by summarizing them only. The Criminal Justice Act
expanded the judge's power to sentence in a single conviction from 6 months to 12 months, and
this could be further extended to 18 months by amendment. The goal is that more cases should
be heard in the courts of the magistrate instead of referring to the court of the state for a trial by
an expensive jury. A further move in decreasing the number of jury trials is that, in two cases,
the Criminal Justice Act 2003 also provides for sentencing in the Crown Court: where there is a
substantial chance of jury tampering or where complicated or long-term financial and business
structures are involved in a case. In the case of R c. O'Callaghan11, for example, a mortgage
scam took place six months before the request from the prosecution barristers that the jury is
released, when too many evidence has become overwhelming and unmanageable12.
Apart from that, there are also some other reasons for which this system has been
attacked. In the jury system selection of the jury is considered to be a very important thing. There
was a time when more than 80% of cases were determined by the juries. The problem is that this
form of random selection can generate unrepresentative juries from time to time. The
conspicuous circumstance of the unrepresentative jury has been observed when all-white juries
have been faced by a non-white defendant. The imbalances, in this case, will not require the
judge to address the issue in several respects. Besides, there is no law specifying that for
purposes of a mix-racial jury, judges have the right to exclude any jurors. Thus, it can hardly be
said that in this situation a decent justice would be given. In the case R vs. Ford13 motor offences,
the modern multiracial jury structure was created. Ford faced a white jury as the prosecution.
11 R c. O'Callaghan [1995]
12 Coen, M, Doak, J, ‘Embedding Explained Jury Verdicts in the English Criminal Trial’ (2017) 37(4) Legal Studies
786-806.
13 R vs. Ford [1989] QB 868

6ISSUES IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
The judge of the court had denied Ford’s offer for a multi-racial jury. The judge of the court had
denied Ford’s offer for a multi-racial jury14.
Juror bias is another issue which also affects the jury system. Studies have shown some
of the impacts of a biased juror on other jurors when considering it. Several factors are included
in juror bias which includes case-specific behaviours, life experiences, behavioural traits, general
values and principles and demographics. The law considers partiality to determine a cause or
dispute in any way as a predetermined opinion. A fundamental fact cannot be confirmed by juror
prejudice. The strength of the proof is considered when it is investigated from case to case. Bias
will most likely arise when it is difficult to bring evidence to the jury15.
Though the judicial system needs to be just, fair and impartial, there exist some situations
where juries provide their decision based on influences. The racial conflict has been recognized
as a concern in a multiracial society. Jurors can be affected by an individual’s physical presence
which has been indicated by research in interpersonal interaction. The jury trial is a method of
reasoning, in which the basis of juror’s decision-making is predetermined mindset, emotional
blockage, internal social prejudices and inexperience. Moreover, if a trial is based on insanity,
then deciding whether the accused was insane at the time of the crime can be difficult for jurors.
In Condron and others vs. United Kingdom16 case, the European Court of Human Rights
observed that a judge in a court failed to adequately direct the jury regarding the issue of
applicant’s silence during police questioning and thus a fair trial within the meaning of Article
6(1) could not be obtained by the applicant.
14 Daly, Gillian, and Rosemary Pattenden. "Racial bias and the English criminal trial jury." The Cambridge Law
Journal 64.3 (2005): 678-710
15 Taylor, N, Denyer, R, ‘Judicial Management of Juror Impropriety’ (2014) 78(1) Journal of Criminal Law 43.
16 Condron and others vs. United Kingdom [2000] EHRR1

7ISSUES IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
However, besides having several advantages, numerous disadvantages have also been
observed in this system which includes:
 As jurors do not belong from the legal field, therefore, they cannot explain a case like
judges;
 The jury is often influencing, which leads to false acquittals.
 After giving judgment, there are no inquiries in jurors’ deliberations, even if the juror has
motivated by racial regard or other preconditions.
However, jurors can also be punished under the provisions of the Juries Act, 1974.
According to section 20A of the said Act17, they can face prison if a jury investigates the case
after being told. Apart from that, the Juries Act, 1974 has been modified by the Criminal Justice
and Courts Act of 2015 and section 69-77 of the aforesaid Act18 has declared certain
misbehaviour of the jurors as a criminal offence19.
Conclusion
Therefore, from the above discussion, it can be said that jury system is used in the English
legal system as a mechanism of check and balances between the nation and its individuals for a
long time but it has been observed that the system is not reliable. Moreover, starting from the
selection process to provide decision there are various flaws have been present which attacks the
system recently. The main problem which has been observed in this system is that jurors do not
belong from the field of law therefore they do not explain a case. Despite these problems, the
system is not abolished. While it is unlikely for the time being to eradicate trial by jury, several
17 The Juries Act, 1974, s 20A
18 The Criminal Justice and Courts Act, 2015, s 69-77
19 Smith, ATH, ‘Repositioning the Law of Contempt: the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015’ [2015] Criminal
Law Review 845.

8ISSUES IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
minor improvements in the perception of the jury system will help the UK to move one step
closer to the true sense of justice.

9ISSUES IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
Bibliography
Books & Journals
Coen, M, Doak, J, ‘Embedding Explained Jury Verdicts in the English Criminal Trial’ (2017)
37(4) Legal Studies 786-806.
Coen, M, Heffernan, L, ‘Juror comprehension of expert evidence: a reform agenda’ [2010]
Criminal Law Review 195.
Daly, Gillian, and Rosemary Pattenden. "Racial bias and the English criminal trial jury." The
Cambridge Law Journal 64.3 (2005): 678-710.
Davies, M, Croall, H, Tyrer, J, Davies, Croall and Tyrer on criminal justice (Pearson 2015) Ch
10.3.
Scott, J ‘From Presence to Participation - The Role of the Juror Reimagined’ (2017) 11(2) Law
and Humanities 286-308.
Smith, ATH, ‘Repositioning the Law of Contempt: the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015’
[2015] Criminal Law Review 845.
Taylor, N, Denyer, R, ‘Judicial Management of Juror Impropriety’ (2014) 78(1) Journal of
Criminal Law 43.
Willmott, Dominic, Daniel Boduszek, and Nigel Booth. "The English jury on trial."
(2017) Custodial Review 82: 12-14.
Case
Bushel’s Case [1670] 124 E.R
Ward vs. James (No. 2). [1966] 1 Q. B. 273

10ISSUES IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
H vs. Ministry of Defence [1991] 2 QB 103
R vs. Bushell [1670] vaugh 135 (CCCP)
R vs. Ford [1989] QB 868
R c. O'Callaghan [1995]
R vs. Ponting [1985] Crim LR 318
Condron and others vs. United Kingdom [2000] EHRR1
Legislation
The Criminal Justice Act, 2003
The Criminal Justice and Courts Act, 2015
The Criminal Law Act, 1977
The Criminal Procedure and Investigation Act, 1996
The European Court of Human Rights
The Juries Act, 1974