The Impact of Jury Impropriety and Article 6 of the ECHR

This essay delves into the critical issues of jury impropriety and its implications on the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The essay examines the challenges of maintaining impartiality in juries, particularly concerning Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) individuals, and discusses the balance between secrecy and reviewability in jury decisions. It references the House of Lords' identification of the extent under section 8 of the enforcement of Court Act 1981 and the case of R v. Smith (2005), which highlights the complexities of investigating jury misconduct and the limitations imposed by common law. The essay provides an overview of Article 6, outlining its obligations regarding fair trials, including the rights to a public hearing, presumption of innocence, and the right to a defense, and the need for equality of arms. The conclusion emphasizes the importance of Article 6 in ensuring fair legal processes and the implications of jury impropriety on the decision-making process. This essay is a valuable resource for students studying law and social justice, offering insights into the practical application of legal principles and the challenges of ensuring fairness within the legal system.

Law and Social Justice
Page 1

Table of Contents
Introduction 3
Discussion 3
Jury Impropriety 3
R v. Smith 2005 4
Article 6 of the ECHR 5
Conclusion 6
Bibliography 7
Page 2

Introduction
In recent years, there have been reports about the fairness of jury towards Black and Minority
Ethnic (BME). After the formation of Jury impropriety, the discussion and decision became
inviolable. It has been observed from this jury judgment few of the laws are challenged by
the European convention under the Article 6 i.e. “Right to a Fair Trial”. The European Court
of Justices (ECJ) has enforced a rule, which explains the existence of sufficient guarantees
for excluding any objectively justified doubts for impartiality of the jury. It has also stressed
that a jury should be impartial from the subjective and objectives point of view1.
Contextually, this research paper focuses on the issue of impropriety of jury and maintaining
balance between competing demand of Secrecy and reviewability. This paper also explains
the Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)2. Thus, the objective of
this study is to understand the impartiality formation of jury along with secrecy and
reviewability with the help of Article 6.
Discussion
Jury Impropriety
In the year 2004, the House of Lords identified the extent under section 8 of the enforcement
of Court Act 1981. Contextually, the section of the 8 Court Act prohibits the judges to ask
jurors questions relating to discussions at the time of making impropriety accusations. The
court has repeated the established principle that the trial judge is solely allowed to investigate
the issues impacting jury considerations. The effects of this law have significantly affected
jury. This is due to the fact that unless the jury members bring concern regarding improper
jury to the judge of the trial prior to the judgment is returned, it is the hard to investigate such
1 Cheryl Thomas, ‘Are Juries Fair’ (2010) 1-65.
2 Justice, ‘Article 6: Right to a Fair Trial’ (News, 2019) <https://justice.org.uk/article-6-right-fair-trial/>
accessed 21 December 2019
Page 3

claims after enforcing judgments. It has been identified that few jurors has understood the
impropriety rule. The recent instances have provided a conflict evident about the jurors in the
year 2007 i.e. the case of manslaughter conviction, which included Keran Henderson. Herein,
the disobedient jurors claimed only after the enforcement majority has not been understood
by jurors. The time a jury foreman has shared an interview regarding this effect, which has
been published in Times newspaper after the enforcement has taken place. This newspaper
highlighted both the parties to be guilty of contempt by the High Court. However, it has been
observed in terms of the other aspects, the jury has reported fellow juror’s behavior relating
to improper use of the internet in the court. Thus, this study explains the facts that the jurors
believe about Impropriety in jury3.
R v. Smith 2005
In the case R v. Smith, Smith has taken a tactical decision for the jury, as members of the jury
were not happy with the other members. Smith further wrote to the judge mentioning about
other members’ behavior relating to discharging of their duties. Smith stated to not seeking
re-trial. The judge took this advice, following which, the jury was reminded of their duties
and left the case to be decided on the basis of their jury. The appellant’s demand was to
conduct investigation about the claimed misconduct and allow him a free trial. According to
the correction by the judge, “the common law prohibition against inquiring into events in the
jury room certainly extends to matters connected with the subject matter of the jury’s
deliberations’ However the actual direction was insufficiently comprehensive or emphatic4”.
3Cheryl Thomas, ‘Are Juries Fair’ (2010) MJ 1-65
4 Criminal Practice , ‘Regina V Smith, Regina V Mercieca: Hl 16 Feb 2005’ ( Law, 2019)
<https://swarb.co.uk/regina-v-smith-regina-v-mercieca-hl-16-feb-2005/> accessed 21
December 2019
Page 4

Article 6 of the ECHR
The article 6 majorly deals with fair trail rights. It mainly consists of two sets of obligations.
In this context, the first set explains the criminal cases along with power of the civil rights
along with the obligations. This set highlights the basic permission towards fair, as well as,
public hearing within the mentioned time period by an impartial individual. The second set
focuses on criminal cases, as well as, comprise 6 aspects. Firstly, Under (Article 6(2)) to be
alleged as above suspicion until found guilty. Secondly, an individual needs to be informed
on time in an understandable language towards the suspect of the detail of ‘The nature and
the cause of the accusation against them ‘under the (Article 6(3) (a)). Third aspects Under
(Article 6(3) (b)) are to have adequate time along with the facilities to prepare a defence. The
next information is comes under (Article 6(3) (c)), which emphasises defending oneself in
person or with the help of legal assistance of the choice or. “To be given it free where the
interests of justice so require” 5. The next one is, “to examine or have examined witnesses
against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the
same conditions as witnesses against him”6 (Article 6(3) (d)). The last information under the
second set is “to have the free assistance of an interpreter if you cannot understand or speak
the language used in court” under (Article 6(3) (e))7.
The fair trial initially needs to identify equality of arms, which has been endorsed between
the parties and has two intimations. This includes if a legal representative expert is
commissioned, then they should allow their own expert to defence. It can be provide the same
position in the process as per the expert of legal representative. The second implication
focuses on the neutral nature of the appointed expert in court. If he/she is not neutral and acts
5 Justice, ‘Article 6: Right to a Fair Trial’ (News, 2019) <https://justice.org.uk/article-6-right-fair-trial/>
accessed 21 December 2019
6 Justice, ‘Article 6: Right to a Fair Trial’ (News, 2019) <https://justice.org.uk/article-6-right-fair-trial/>
accessed 21 December 2019
7 Justice, ‘Article 6: Right to a Fair Trial’ (News, 2019) <https://justice.org.uk/article-6-right-fair-trial/>
accessed 21 December 2019
Page 5

as a legal representative, then the defence must be allowed to appoint their own expert8. Thus,
this article of Fair Trial has enhanced the important aspects towards the defence protections.
Conclusion
It can be concluded that the Article 6 of the ECHR mainly focuses on the protection of fair
trial. It has further been highlighted that the decisions taken in the selected case of R v. Smith
along with the issues of impropriety in jury. The major problem that has been found is the
fact that few members of jury are not doing their duties, which has been creating problem of
excessive delay in decision-making process. This article has published a set of obligation,
which provides a fair idea related to criminal charges and defendants. It is mostly demanded
for a fair enforcement and decisions for the betterment of the country. Thus, it can be
concluded that Article 6 is a major requirements for the jury to take decisions.
8 Joëlle Vuille, Luca Lupària and Franco Taroni , ‘Scientific Evidence and the Right to A Fair Trial under
Article 6 ECHR’ (2017) 16 LPR 1, 55-68.
Page 6

Bibliography
Journals
Cheryl Thomas, ‘Are Juries Fair’ (2010) MJ 1-65
Joëlle Vuille, Luca Lupària and Franco Taroni , ‘Scientific Evidence and the Right to A Fair
Trial under Article 6 ECHR’ (2017) 16 LPR 1, 55-68
Websites
Justice, ‘Article 6: Right to a Fair Trial’ (News, 2019) <https://justice.org.uk/article-6-right-
fair-trial/> accessed 21 December 2019
Criminal Practice , ‘Regina V Smith, Regina V Mercieca: Hl 16 Feb 2005’ (Law, 2019)
<https://swarb.co.uk/regina-v-smith-regina-v-mercieca-hl-16-feb-2005/> accessed 21
December 2019
Page 7