SID: 1070156 Part A The Jury system A jury is the term for a panel of lay members who sit

in court to determine the findings of fact in the case before them. In criminal law, they come to a verdict on whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty. In civil law, they determine liability and the amount of damages to be awarded. Generally, juries sit in panels of 12(Mitchell, 2007). For the most serious criminal offences, defendants are tried before a judge and a lay jury of 12 members in the Crown Court. There are around 200,000 jurors hearing case every year. The jurors are not legally qualified nor paid to carry out legal services. They play a substantial role in decision making process in English Court. In Criminal Trials, jurors only hear 1-2% of all criminal trials. They play a role of decider of fact in indictment heard in the Crown Court. They are the sole arbiters of questions of fact whereas the judge determines the question of law which laid down in Bushells case; the jury decides whether the defendant should be guilty or not guilty of the crime with which he has been charged. In the event of conviction, the judge alone determines the sentence to be served by the offender. Juries in civil cases have declined and are used in less than 1% of the case. Right to jury trial in civil case is restricted to 4 areas: defamation, fraud, malicious prosecution and false imprisonment. It has been argued that juries should only be used in simpler cases and not in complex fraud cases. Roskill Committee on Fraud Trials (1986) recommended the abolition of trial by jury in fraud trials. The government has tried to make fraud trials more accessible for jurors. In civil case, the jury decides the defendants liability and the amount of damages to be awarded. There is a jury of 8 persons in the country count whereas there is a jury of 12 persons in the High Court. The selection of jury is based on people who aged between 18 to 70, registered as a voter and resident in the UK for at least 5 years(from the age of 13). Jurors are selected at random from the electoral register. This is the responsibility of a Central Jury Summoning Bureau (CJSB) and the names are generated y computer. Those who are not registered to vote and homeless will not be selected. Section 1of the

juries Act 1974 has amended by CJA 2003(Andrew, 2007).Every person who meets the general criteria is qualified to serve as a juror in the Crown Court for criminal cases unless they are mentally disordered or disqualified, generally by virtue of conduct. Once a panel of jurors has been assembled, the parties may wish to challenge certain jurors and have them removed from the trial prior to them being sworn in. The defence or prosecution may challenge for cause on 3 grounds: the juror is not qualified; or reasonably believed to be biased against the defendant; or biased for some other reasons. The Attorney Generals to require a juror to stand by in order to prevent the empanelment of a manifestly unsuitable juror. The jury vetting is used to check on the jurors suitability for the case being tried which involve the checking of police records. This power is only permissible in case involving public security (Martin, 2007). The main justification to use juries is to involve the public participation in the administration of justice. Boosts public confidence toward the jurisdiction system by enchanting the transparent of English Legal System. The random selection of the juries also provides a panel member who came from all walks of life and hence they are more representative. In addition, the decision of jury is collective rather than the individual judges who represent narrow perspective. As a randomly elected body stting in only a single trial, they are not case hardened. Research in 1979 by Baldwin and McConville found that discrimination were severely under-represent on juries. This could only partly be explained by language difficulties. They also found that there was a lack of women on the juries. This may be partly accounted for by excusal due to childcare problems, and to the local practice, now discontinued, of summoning twice as many men as woman. At the same time, the court has no power to ensure a racially balanced jury(R v Smith; R v Tarrant). This refusal to allow for a racially balanced jury denies individuals of their right to be tired by the representatives of their own race and create fears of racism. Juries have the ultimate right to find defendants innocent or guilty, they are never told that they can acquit if their consciences suggest they should. Nor do they give any reason for their decisions, so we dont know how often juries acquit defendants out of a sense of justice, even though they know that the law demands a guilty verdict.

There are cases of juries using their right to find according to their feeling and consciences, often concerning issues of political and moral controversy, such as R v Kronlid (1996). However, the juries trials are slow as juries spend much time to wait around to be summoned into court. Juries are inefficient as they have no training in law and may not able to comprehend the issues. The Roskill and Fraud Committee doubted the juries ability in dealing the complex fraud case and it is suggested to abolish the jury sit for fraud case. CJA 2003 provides that the single judge without jury can sit for fraud case. Since jury selection is random, the jury might not be truly representative of the wider society. Further, vetting, challenges, excusal and disqualification threaten the representativeness of the jury though this been partially reduced with the recent changes brought about by the CJA 2003. In addition, juries only return an unexplained verdict. Lord Denning stated for a jury, you never knew what they will do, and if they go wrong, there is not putting them right. Jurors may be resentful owing to the compulsory nature of jury service. The secrecy of jury room makes matter worsen. In Vaise v Delawat, the jury even came out decision by flipping the coin. It may also lead to perverse verdict which show the juries act irrationally at time. This issue can be shown in R v Kronlid. Jury nobbling is another problem. It is suggested that jurors may be biased towards certain group. For instance, they may favour on good, attractive looking member of the opposite sex. In R v West and R v Taylor, reflect the jurors may be influenced by the media coverage of the case. It is highly unlikely that the jury system will be replaced, though it is clear that the jury system is under scrutiny and law reform. Anyway, the jury may be replaced by a single judge as the abolition of jury system in Malaysia. This will result in efficient, save both time and money in jurisdiction system. It takes more legalistic approach to cases. However, this approach would undermine the concept of public participation and loss of public confidence. A single judge may also case-hardened. Alternatively, it is suggested to use the bench of judges, yet this would increase cost, case hardened and also public confidence loss.

Profession or special jury also can be use, chosen from an established body of nonlegal experts. A professional jury might not be representative if the wider society and thus might suffer from loss of public confident. This would only be useful for certain types of cases. In additional, it is suggested to use composite tribunals, it can trained lay persons sitting in special tribunals heaped by a judge. This alternative was preferred by the Roskill Committee and Auld Review. Finally, it might be possible to have a smaller number of jurors. Nine members is normal for continental countries such as Spain, which reintroduced the use of juries in certain criminal cases in 1996. Alternatively, a jury of six could be used for less serious criminal cases and occurs in some American states. Conclusion, the jury system is now deeply entrenched as part of the rich English legal system tradition. If they are completely abolished, the benefit of community participation in the legal system would be lost. Only make appropriate reform will be efficiently to solve the problem.

(1408 worlds)

Reference

HeinOline, 2000. The Admissbility of evidence to impeach jury Verdict. [online] Avialable at: <http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/u mialr22&div=44&id=&page= > [Accessed 10 November 2010]. House of Law, 1977. Judgments - Regina v. Smith (On Appeal From The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)).[online] Avialable at: <http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldjudgmt/jd000727/smith-1.htm> [Accessed 10 November 2010]. Martin, J., 2007. The English Legal System. 5thed. London: Hodder Arnold Mitchell, A., 2007. As Law. 2nd ed. Abingdon: Routledge-Cavendish. Slapper, G. and Kelly, D., 2008. The English Legal System. 9thed. Abingdon: Routledge-Cavendish.