Jury System
The jury system has deep historical roots and has been described by Lord Devlin in title ‘Trial by Jury’ as ‘the lamp that shows the freedom lives’. Juries allow the citizens to take part in the administration of justice so that verdicts are seen to be those of society rather the judicial system.
Furthermore, in Justice, Democracy and the Jury, named Gobart James stated that freeing the jury from the law and precedent allows them to follow their conscience and good sense, and juries instinctively know right from wrong. In “Jury out on the Rule of Law” name David Corker stressed that juries were able on occasion to inhibit power and offer protection to the powerless, this is well established in R v Ponting and R v Kronlid.
Despite the facts of the advantages of the jury system, there are debatable issues such as: the jury selection, incompetency in deciding complex cases and immunity granted by the common law. Under s.5(1) of the Jury Act 1974 , states that a jury must be selected at random and only can be excused for a good cause or disqualified for various reason such as illiteracies.
In Ethnic Minorities in The Criminal Courts: Perception of Fairness and Equality of Treatment: Research by Hood, Shute and Seemungal stated that ‘jury member’s sometimes just want to see ethnic minorities defendants go down’, and this is subsequently contrary to Article 6 of European Convention of Human Rights guaranteeing right to fair trial. It is because ethnic minorities are not well represented. This criticism is explained the case of R v Ford, Lord Lane rejected the defendant’s argument’s that he ought to be allowed a jury with representatives of his ethnic group and held that ‘fairness is achieved by the principle of random selection.’
Under s.8 of the Content of Court Act 1981, expressly provided an immunity of jury by prohibiting investigation of deliberation and any evidence of jury misconduct would be inadmissible. The Department of Constitutional Affairs in its
Furthermore, in Justice, Democracy and the Jury, named Gobart James stated that freeing the jury from the law and precedent allows them to follow their conscience and good sense, and juries instinctively know right from wrong. In “Jury out on the Rule of Law” name David Corker stressed that juries were able on occasion to inhibit power and offer protection to the powerless, this is well established in R v Ponting and R v Kronlid.
Despite the facts of the advantages of the jury system, there are debatable issues such as: the jury selection, incompetency in deciding complex cases and immunity granted by the common law. Under s.5(1) of the Jury Act 1974 , states that a jury must be selected at random and only can be excused for a good cause or disqualified for various reason such as illiteracies.
In Ethnic Minorities in The Criminal Courts: Perception of Fairness and Equality of Treatment: Research by Hood, Shute and Seemungal stated that ‘jury member’s sometimes just want to see ethnic minorities defendants go down’, and this is subsequently contrary to Article 6 of European Convention of Human Rights guaranteeing right to fair trial. It is because ethnic minorities are not well represented. This criticism is explained the case of R v Ford, Lord Lane rejected the defendant’s argument’s that he ought to be allowed a jury with representatives of his ethnic group and held that ‘fairness is achieved by the principle of random selection.’
Under s.8 of the Content of Court Act 1981, expressly provided an immunity of jury by prohibiting investigation of deliberation and any evidence of jury misconduct would be inadmissible. The Department of Constitutional Affairs in its