Determining Guilt In A Criminal Trial Law General Essay

Published Date: 02 Nov 2017

Introduction

Trial by jury has been introduced in England and Wales around 12th century by Henry II and it has been an essential part of the criminal justice system. Over the time the system has significantly changed and nowadays juries are not assigned to deal with land disputes but to evaluate the evidences in a case and decide upon true facts and what did happen. Article 39 of Magna Carta (1215) enclosed the jury trial as a civil liberty principle and since King John signed the Magna Carta, the statutory provision of the trial principle have been amended and strengthened by virtue of Juries Act 1825 – which required the men to be between the age of 21 years old and 60 and to possess property within certain annual value-, 1870 Act, 1922 Act - which imposed payments for jury services-, 1954 Act, 1975 Act and the Juries (Disqualification) Act 1984.

The current jury is governed by the last two Acts – 1975 and 1984 – in alliance with the Criminal Law Act 1977 and Criminal Justice Acts of 1988, 1994 and 2003 but over the years, in 1993 and 2001, it has been subject to debate regarding the jury reliability, rationality, experience and bias. The (Runciman) Royal Commission on Criminal Justice (Cmmd 2263, London, HMSO, 1993) report focused on reviewing the trial by jury and recommending limited right of jury trial, while in 2001 Sir Robin Auld produced the well known "Auld Report" (Lord Justice Auld, Review of the Criminal Court of England and Wales, HMSO, London, 2001), which was an essential speech in the future of the jury trial debate. The latest report mentioned that the role of the jury trial requests revision as well as the jury system, with the aim of fair judgement (Sanders A. & Young R., 2007).

The English constitutional framework includes fundamental concepts of the legal system such as the right to a fair trial, right to a public hearing before an independent and impartial court within reasonable time (European Convention on Human Rights, Article 6), the presumption of innocence – "a man is innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt" (Coffin, et al. v United States) and other rights protected by the European Convention. The concept of fairness is another important principle at the core of the legal system. Lord Hewart stated that "justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done" (R v Sussex Justice ex parte McCarthy 1924). Alongside the stated principles, there is another vital part of the English legal system, the jury, which supports a healthy criminal justice system and makes sure the public benefits the most from it: "Trial by jury is more than an instrument of justice and more than a wheel of the constitution; it is the lamp that shows that freedom lives" (Lord Devlin, 1956).

Juries and criminal & civil cases

Jury’s function is to consider the evidences in a trial and decide upon a person’s guilt or innocence. For the jury’s to reach the verdict, the judge will present the law which applies in the case. If the person is found guilty, the judge will decide the sentence; this in a criminal case. In civil cases, the jury is just deciding upon damages and how much money is to be paid as compensation. Nowadays the trial by jury is limited to major criminal cases and infrequently in civil cases.

Gradually, the trial by jury in civil cases vanished and the main reason for that was the judge’s right to refuse a hearing before a jury. Under the Administration of Justice Act 1933, the judge can order to hold a trial without a jury, but under the same act, an application for jury trial in libel and slander, malicious prosecution, false imprisonment and fraud, as well as breach of promise of marriage and seduction cases must be granted by the court. Later, the Supreme Court Act 1981 amended the Administration of Justice Act 1933 and stated the court distraction over the right of a jury trial except the libel and slander, malicious prosecution, false imprisonment and fraud. This applies only if the court does not decide that the trial needs extended examination of the documents or investigation that cannot be made by the jury. As far as any other cases, the trial by jury is at the decision of the court.

Even though the participation of the jury is important in the criminal justice system, they take part in only 1 per cent of all criminal cases (Slapper and Kelly, 2006). It is because of the classification of the offences why jury decides upon a small percentage of the cases. Although it seems a very low rate of jury hearing, it equals 30,000 trials, the most serious offences, where the defendants face the greatest possible loss of liberty (Thomas, 2010).

The majority of criminal cases, 95%, are "summary" – minor offences and less serious, very common – that are heard in Magistrates Court, where juries have no role. In most of the remaining 5% of criminal cases, the defendant is found guilty, therefore the jury trial will not take place, but the other ones will be held in front of a jury, in Crown Court. Because of the offences classification and court system structure, where "summery offenses" are heard in the Magistrates Court, "indictable offences"- the most serious - in the Crown Court and "triable either-way offences" in either of the courts, it seems that the courts are more efficient regarding the time and money spent on the jury trials.

Eligibility of the juries, fairness and issues

Before answering if the juries are fair when reaching their verdict, the founding of the jury system and qualifications for jury services must be looked at. These criteria have changed over the last decades, and as Peter Thorton stated, the current jury is "undoubtedly a different creature from the jury of 1954" (Thorton, 2004). Before 1972, owners of a home, evaluated to a certain value, and men between 21 and 60 were eligible for jury services. The Criminal Justice Act 1972 cancelled the property qualification and later, the Juries Act 1974 increased the age limit of 21 to 60 years old to between 18 and 70 years old. The same Act also stated other qualification such as residency and registry on Parliamentary or local government elections.

Lord Devlin’s words describing the juries as "male, middle-aged, middle-minded and middle-class" (Lord Devlin, 1956) are still expressing the common view of the jury system, regardless the amendments done in the last years. Criminal Courts Lord Justice Auld concluded that there is no diversity in the juries and not enough representation of the communities they represent: "juries in England and Wales mostly still do not reflect a broad range of skills and experience ... of the communities from which they are drawn. [...] If the jury is to fulfil its valued role of giving the community a say in the administration of justice, it should reflect the community better than it does." (Robin Auld, 2001)

Based on Auld review, The Criminal Justice Act 2003, which come into force in 2007, amended the Juries Act 1974 and abolished most of the ineligibility criteria and now anyone on the election role can serve, except for mentally disordered persons and four other categories of people – the judiciary, administration of justice, the clergy and people on bail in criminal proceedings.

The jury selection process is thought to be an important fact on the verdict’s fairness. Jurors are randomly selected by the Central Jury Summoning Bureau, considering how many jurors are needed for each area. At the Crown Court, the jury for each case will be selected from the panel of summoned persons, by ballot, in an open court.

Since the public supports the jury trials, the fairness of the verdict is very important in the criminal trials, but very little is known how juries reach their verdict and section 8 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 states that it is a criminal offence to "obtain, disclose or solicit any particulars of statements made, opinions expressed, arguments advanced, or votes cast by members of a jury in the course of their deliberations.". As there are no evidences on decisions-making, some reports presented that juries do not understand legal directions, but the main issues are discrimination, consistency, understanding and media exposure. (Thomas, 2010)

Cheryl Thomas’s report in 2010 is based on a study carried out at different courts in the UK and it looks at different factors of jury fairness, including discrimination, stereotyping, understanding of legal directions and if media influence their verdict and how. To get an answer for the concerns, Professor Thomas used case simulation at Crown Courts, analysis of actual jury verdicts and post-verdict survey of jurors. The study reviled that because no actual evidences, false conclusions were drawn about jury decision-making.

The case simulation study in Nottingham and Winchester Crown Court with the purpose of showing if race affects the verdicts of all-White juries, proved that the decisions did not discriminate against Black and minority ethnic (BME) defendants, but there were differences between the two courts; Winchester juries had the same verdicts for White and BME defendants, where Nottingham had difficulties reaching a verdict. In her research, Prof. Thomas also stated that "the study also found that jurors in general (both White and BME jurors) do not racially stereotype defendants." However, Professor observed that the jury system is not representing ethnic minorities and there are race imbalances. Same case simulation explored jurors’ understanding about legal direction and any improvements if written summery or legal direction were given. Results showed most juries from two courts found the legal direction easy to follow, while 51 per cent of the juror in the other court said that the directions were difficult to understand. The Lord Chief Justice communicated that younger juries might find oral presentation of information difficult to understand, leading to negative impact on getting to a decision but Thomas’s study found that actually 49 per cent of young jurors, aged between 18 to 28, found legal instruction easier to follow. Also, the report summary’s on jury’s comprehension shows that in fact a written outline of the legal direction during judge’s directions did improve jurors’ law understanding and most of them wanted more information about how to accomplish deliberations.

A survey completed by 668 jurors regarding the use of media, especially internet, concluded that jurors "saw information on the internet during trial" but did not admit "looking for information on the internet". Even if they are given notice by the judge at beginning of a trial not to use media in order to get information about the case, the study showed that most of the jurors found it difficult not to use the Internet, especially in high profile cases. Directly related to legal understanding of the case guideline and the age of the jurors, people over thirties were looking online for information, proving that younger people are more able to recall information or as Thomas says in her report, "Young jurors are also more likely to have recent experience of formal education, where oral learning is routine.".

The analysis of CREST suggested that juries do their work effectively and all of them spend most of their time discussing alternatives and find the truth in order to rich a verdict. In almost all cases, 64 per cent, juries deliberate, but this result depends on "evidences presented and legal standard required to prove guilt." (Thomas, 2010)

On an online article about the disadvantages about jury system, Linda Woolhether wrote that jurors are inexperienced and "most jurors have little or no training in matters of law" and "the lack of legal knowledge allows prosecutors to easily convince and persuade jurors to believe their assertions". (Linda Woolhether, 2011). Her argument can be supported by a study Matthew, Hancock and Briggs did, which showed that "well educated, skilled people and professionals are under-represented" and about 30 per cent of the jurors have no degree and there is lack of knowledge about the court process for another 40 per cent of the jurors.

Conclusion

After reviewing the cited reports and considering the use of jury for over 800 years in the UK, it is to be concluded that the trial by jury is fair and effective. Having twelve jurors applying common sense and same values, discussing the evidences and analyzing the case facts, then reaching a verdict, is better than a single person’s decision. Moreover, because of the qualifications, legal skills and past experience, a judge can recall past cases and sometimes not taking into account some other facts in present or future trials. But having the jurors with their day-to-day life and common sense approach to a decision, combined with judge’s legal training, can lead to a fair criminal legal system, as in the present. The jury system reflects society’s implication and makes people part of the law system, the system they believe in. If is for the trial by jury to be eliminated, there will be a lack of public trust in the criminal justice. Therefore, trial by jury should serve the public and be served by the public for as long as possible.