Courts and Judges

Courts and Judges Text 1: Courts and Judges

2. Pre-reading task 1. Before you read the text, look at the following statements and mark what you think the answers are. Then scan the text and check your initial hypotheses. a. In England and Wales, more than 90 per cent of criminal cases are decided by Justices of the Peace who have no legal qualifications. b. If the accused pleads guilty, the prosecution nevertheless True / False has to prove his guilt to the court. c. If a person has been acquitted, he cannot be tried again for True / False the same offence. 2. Now read the text and answer the questions that follow. True / False

Courts You will now be familiar with the division of law into civil and criminal. This division is reflected to some extent in the structure of the courts. In some countries, there are different courts for settling civil disputes and for criminal prosecutions, in others both kinds of prosecution are dealt with in one court. In England, the system is somewhat 'mixed': although certain courts exercise a purely civil or criminal jurisdiction, most English courts (and judges) hear both civil and criminal cases. The court in which a case is first heard is called the court of first instance, or trial court. In almost all cases, it is possible to appeal to a higher court for reconsideration of the decision of the original court. These courts are called the appellate courts. The lowest English court is the magistrates' court. (By tradition, the names of some courts begin with capital letters; others do not). Magistrates (also called Justices of the Peace, JPs) are not professional judges, they are lay persons with no formal legal qualifications. The magistrates' court is concerned mainly with minor criminal matters, such as motoring offences, parking violations, and some civil wrongs, such as non-payment of council tax or family matters. Some magistrates' courts, called 'youth courts', exercise jurisdiction over crimes committed by juvenile offenders and other matters relating to children- under 18. All criminal cases brought to trial begin in the magistrates' court and 97 percent end there - this gives some indication of the importance of this court. More serious offences are dealt with in the Crown Court. Whether or not a case will be committed to the Crown Court depends on the nature of the offence. There are three types of criminal offence: summary, indictable and triable either way. Summary offences are minor offences tried in the magistrates' court, without a jury, before a bench of three lay magistrates or one district judge. They are called so because they must be tried summarily, i.e. speedily by the most convenient court. They include motoring offences, minor thefts and assaults, criminal damage, prostitution, and drunk and disorderly behaviour in a public place. Indictable offences are the most serious offences, such as murder, manslaughter, rape or arson. An indictment is a formal document listing in sufficient detail the charges against the defendant. Magistrates do not try indictable offences, they will only hold a preliminary hearing to consider the evidence and establish whether it forms a prima facie case (whether it is supported by some evidence) against the accused. If a reasonable case does exist, they will send the accused to the Crown Court for trial, where it will be heard by a judge and jury. If not, the case will be discharged, i.e. the accused will be allowed to leave the court without punishment, but it can be resumed if the prosecuting authorities find further evidence. Offences triable either way are offences which can be committed in a serious or minor way, e.g. theft or burglary. If the magistrates decide that the case should be tried summarily, the accused can still insist on trial by jury in the Crown Court, and then the case will be an indictable offence and will be committed to the Crown Court. Some defendants do that in the hope that a lay jury may be more compassionate than a bench. However, if the magistrates decide that the case is an indictable offence, the accused cannot elect to be tried summarily. The power of magistrates to impose fines or imprisonment is limited. Therefore, sometimes, if they feel that the case merits a more severe sentence, then, following conviction, they can send the person convicted to the Crown Court for sentencing. Proceedings in the Crown Court {also called the Circuit Court} are always presided over by a judge, whether a High Court judge for more serious crimes, or a circuit judge or a recorder for less serious cases. When the accused pleads 'not guilty', the case will always be heard in the presence of a jury. If the defendant pleads guilty, then the jury is not required and the judge will pass sentence. Unlike the magistrates' court, where proceedings are always held in open court and may be witnessed by any

1 member of the public, proceedings in Crown Courts are sometimes closed to the public. This happens, for example, when a child is giving evidence of sexual abuse or when a witness might be threatened by someone watching the proceedings. Although some civil cases are dealt with at magistrates' courts, the majority begin in the county court and are heard by a circuit judge or a district judge. They almost always sit alone, without a jury, and consider a wide range of matters: contract and tort, property and partnerships. They will be permitted to try family cases only if they have been specially trained and approved for that work. Since 1991 there is no upper financial limit for actions, although those involving large financial claims are usually heard in the High Court. Where a claim is for less than £1000 the district judge (in whose hands is the administration of the county court) will arbitrate the matter using the small claims procedure. This is a very informal and inexpensive procedure, since no costs are awarded to the successful party. The High Court is mainly concerned with civil claims involving large sums of money, as well as with appeals from the lower courts. It is staffed with High Court judges, and is divided into three divisions: the Queen's Bench Division (QBD) that deals mainly with contract and tort; the Chancery Division that hears disputes relating to trusts, mortgages, the property of the dead, bankruptcy and company liquidation; and the Family Division dealing with family matters. Within each of the Divisions of the High Court there are Divisional Courts that deal with appeals. A single judge will hear a case at first instance; two or more may be required to sit in an appeal case. The High Court judges work a rota, trying cases in London as well as in the major court centres throughout the country. This practice of going on a circuit dates back to the twelfth century. The Court of Appeal hears most of the important civil and criminal appeals from courts in England and Wales. Its Civil Division is headed by the Master of the Rolls (MR) and the Criminal Division by the Lord Chief Justice (LCJ), who is also the head of the judiciary. The appeals will normally be heard by three Lord Justice~ of Appeal sitting together. No witnesses are called and no fresh evidence is allowed to be produced, but the barristers may argue their cases. In almost all cases the decision of the Court of Appeal is final but where a point of law of great public importance is concerned and it is felt that the law could be clarified on this subject, then an appeal is made to the highest court in the land, the House of Lords. The House of Lords is more correctly called the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords. Judges in the House of Lords are called Lords of Appeal in Ordinary but are commonly known as the Law Lords. The House of Lords judges are life peers created from the rank of judges. They may sit and vote in the House of Lords like any other peer but by tradition they only concern themselves with legislation which relates to legal matters. Normally each appeal is heard by five Law Lords, although in some rare instances cases are heard by a panel of seven. Very few criminal cases ever come 'to the Law Lords, and it is not possible for anyone to take his case to the House of Lords: they must ask the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords itself for 'leave to appeal' (permission). House of Lords' decisions are binding on all other courts but the House of Lords is not bound by its own decision: sometimes it will overrule its previous decision and thus change the law. . In June 2003 the Government announced its intention to create a new Supreme Court to replace the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords. The main reasons for the establishment of this court are constitutional and based upon the need for a clear separation of powers. It is felt that it is necessary to remove the Lords elf Appeal in Ordinary from the legislature and end the anomaly of the position whereby the highest court in the land is situated within one of the chambers of Parliament. Most English domestic law is not affected by the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union but if the decision of the European Court of Justice (ECJ), which sits in Luxembourg, comes into conflict with the national law, Parliament can then decide whether and how to amend it, unless it can retain the law by arguing that the country's vital interests are at stake. When an English court is in doubt as to the interpretation of law, it may refer a case to the ECJ for guidance and the ECJ will give a ruling after which the national court will give its decision.

Magistrates and Judges What is striking to an outside observer of the English legal system is that magistrates are not professional judges but are lay persons, without legal experience, appointed on behalf of the Crown to keep the peace within a specified district. Members of their local community respected for their judgment and common sense, they dispose of 97 percent of all criminal cases in the country. In the eyes of the general public, their greatest advantage is that they are free of the habits of thought which characterise professional lawyers. Lay magistracy has existed in England and Wales since the 12th century. Nowadays

2 headteachers, doctors and people active in their community are the kind of people who are invited to become magistrates. If a person wishes to become a JP, he may apply to the Lord Chancellor. On average, they are required to sit 35 days each year, and they serve until retirement or removal. They are not paid for their work, receiving only out-of-pocket expenses for what they do; sums for the loss of earnings are payable but these are not generous. Although not legally qualified, they do receive some basic training, and in their work they are advised on the law by the clerk of the court. The justices' clerk is a professional lawyer of at least five years' standing. He must give the magistrates legal advice but may not take part in the actual decision making. Usually a case is heard by a bench of three lay magistrates but in large cities, where it might be difficult to obtain the services of sufficient numbers of lay magistrates, there are professional, legally qualified magistrates who are called district judges (formerly, stipendiary magistrates). There are about 100 of them (as against some 30,000 lay magistrates); they are paid for their work and are allowed to sit alone on the bench. Unlike magistrates, who work only in the lowest courts, judges can work in all courts. They are independent, their salaries are fixed by statute and they hold office 'during good behaviour', that is, for life. Professional judges deal mostly with civil cases, and only with the most serious crimes, which are relatively few in number. Most judges are full-time judges; but there are also many part-time judges who, when they are not sitting as judges, carryon their careers as solicitors or barristers. A distinctive feature of the British system is that Britain does not have a career judiciary. Unlike many countries on the continent, where law graduates can choose to be a judge at the outset of their careers, judges in England are chosen from lawyers who have served for 10-15 years and have gained considerable experience in judicial matters. They are appointed by the Judicial Appointments Commission. On the other side of the Atlantic, in the United States, judges are not appointed but elected. However, in England it is feared that such a system, if adopted, may lead to politicisation of the judiciary. In addition to the above you should be aware of the roles of the law officers of the state. The Lord Chancellor is the government's principal legal spokesman. The Attorney General is the chief legal adviser to the government. His consent is required to bring a prosecution in certain cases involving state security. The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) is a civil servant who is responsible for the running of the prosecution service. His consent is required to proceed in cases involving certain criminal offences. Judges in England are independent of the executive. Only the courts have the authority to overturn a decision made by a government ministry that acted illegally or beyond its authorised powers. This is known as preventing an abuse of power. This freedom, which enables them to exercise restraint over government action, is fiercely defended by the judiciary. Since, historically, there is no rigid separation between the legislative and the executive powers in England, it is crucial that they should be subject to outside checks. And one of the most important checks is the independence of the judges. This conviction has been forcefully expressed by one of the greatest twentieth-century judges Lord Denning: 'No member of the Government, no Member of Parliament, and no official of any Government department has any right whatever to direct or influence or to interfere with the decisions of any 6f the judges. It is the sure knowledge of this that gives the people their confidence in the judges ... ' Not only are the courts independent of the executive but they have the power to review decisions of government officials. This is done by way of 'judicial review', a special procedure which enables individuals to challenge decisions by the executive in the Administrative Court, which is part of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court.

Appeals In order to appeal to a higher court for reassessment the appellant must be able to show that he has certain grounds for dissatisfaction. In a criminal case, a person may appeal against a conviction (the fact that he has been found guilty) or against sentence (which he finds too harsh). The higher court may 1) allow the appeal (reverse the decision of the trial court) and quash (cancel) the conviction; 2) order are-trial; 3) reduce the punishment and 4) dismiss the appeal (uphold the decision of the trial court) and then the conviction will stand. There are, of course, occasions where the prosecution feels that the defendant should not have been acquitted. Until recently, the prosecution had no right of appeal in this situation. If a defendant was acquitted, he could not be placed in 'double jeopardy' and tried again on the same charge (even if he later admitted the offence!). In other words, a person could not be prosecuted more than once for the same offence. But in 2003 protection against double jeopardy was abolished. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 allowed the Court of Appeal to quash an acquittal and order a re-trial if a) there is 'new and compelling evidence of guilt' (such as DNA) and it is in the interests of justice to do so, or b) it is satisfied that the

3 acquittal was 'tainted' because a juror or witness had been intimidated. When this proposal was made, it was strongly criticised by many, but nevertheless it has been put into action. Sometimes there are situations where it is felt that the trial judge made a mistake in the application of law. Then either party can appeal, and the appeal on a point of law will go over the immediate higher court to the court of next instance, for instance, from the magistrates' court directly to the High Court, leaping over the Crown Court (see Fig. 4.1). If the law was indeed interpreted incorrectly, the High Court will order the case to be reheard by the magistrates and at the rehearing they must apply the appeUate court ruling. But appeals that go to the House of Lords end there (are not returned for re-trying).

3. Text 1 comprehension questions Answer these questions. 1 What is the difference between summary and indictable offences? 2 How is the correct application of law by magistrates ensured? 3 Why did the Government decide to replace the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords with a new Supreme Court? 4 How could the election of judges lead to their politicisation? 5 What is judicial review? 6 What decisions are available to courts in appeal cases? 7 Why do you think the abolition of protection against double jeopardy was strongly criticised? 8 What do you think are the reasons for having a variety of courts?

4. True-false statements Confirm or refute these statements. Begin with a short answer, e.g. 'Yes, it is/has/does, etc.' or 'No, it isn't/hasn't/doesn't, etc.' and add one sentence to prove your point.

1 Magistrates do not try indictable offences. 2 Most criminal matters are heard in open court. 3 The House of Lords never overrules its previous decisions. 4 Professional judges rarely deal with criminal cases. 5 Judges in England are elected by the people. 6 Individuals cannot challenge decisions of the executive in court. 7 If a defendant was acquitted, he cannot be tried again on the same charge.

5. The three branches of power a) Text 1 mentions the three branches of power. Complete the table with derivatives of the words 'legislature', 'executive', "judiciary '.

Organ Concerned with Member Adjective legislature executive formulating and Member of gvt implementing gvt policy judiciary

6. Name the crime 1 a) Match the crimes in the box to their definitions below and write the names in the spaces provided. The first one has been done for you. theft * murder * handling stolen goods * burglary * battery arson * drunken driving * criminal damage * manslaughter * assault

1 assault acting in such a way as to put a victim in fear of immediate physical harm 2.______physically attacking a person or merely touching him in a hostile or offensive manner without his consent

3.______taking the property of another dishonestly with the intention of keeping it permanently, stealing

4 4.______secretly breaking into a building in order to steal or hurt someone or cause damage to property 5.______unlawfully killing someone with an intention to kill or cause a serious bodily injury 6.______driving under the influence of drink

7.______unlawfully killing someone without malicious intent

8.______unlawfully destroying or damaging property of another or one's own by setting fire to it 9.______unlawfully destroying or damaging property of another or one's own

10.______receiving or disposing of stolen goods or helping someone to do it b) Write what is similar and what is different between: 1 assault and battery; 2 murder and manslaughter; 3 theft and handling stolen goods; 4 theft and burglary; 5 arson and criminal damage. In your answers use the structure: 'A and B are similar in that…but they are different in that A involves ... (while B ... )'.

7. Which court? Law Read the following examples and complete the sentences naming the offence or wrongdoing and the court that is likely to hear the case. Be ready to prove your point. 1. A driver is stopped by the police. A roadside breath test proves positive. He is charged with ... The case will be heard at the ... 2. A couple have always had a tempestuous relationship. In one particularly ugly brawl the wife stabs her tormentor to death. She is charged with ... The case will be heard at the ... 3. Two schoolchildren, aged 14, intentionally set fire to the school building. The fire causes fifty thousand pounds' worth of damage. They are charged with ... The case will be heard at the ... 4. A man steals a pound of meat from a butcher's shop. He is charged with ... The case will be heard at the ... 5. Two young men break into a pub at night and steal £800 from the vending and gaming machines. They are charged with ... The case will be heard at the ... 6. A gang of youths attacks a woman while she is out jogging in a park. The woman is taken to hospital with serious injuries. They are charged with ... The case will be heard at the ... 7. A psychopath stalks and kills a 15-year-old girl. He is charged with ... The case will be heard at the ... 8. Because of financial difficulties a couple decide to sell their house for a price considerably lower than the market value. Contracts are exchanged with the buyer, but then they refuse to complete the sale arguing that the price is too low. The buyer decides to sue them for. .. The case will be heard at the ... 9. A qualified engineer from Amsterdam is refused employment in Manchester because he is Dutch. He sues the company for ... The case will be heard at the ...

8. The court system. Speaking Use Fig. 4.1 to talk about the court system of England and Wales. Follow this plan: the court's place in the system, the matters heard, the judges. Link points with connecting words and phrases.

9. 'Evidence'. The word 'evidence' is uncountable and therefore cannot be used in the plural or with an indefinite article. Write six sentences, set in a legal context, illustrating the correct use of this word. 'Evidence' collocates

5 with the adjectives: 'strong', 'irrefutable', 'material', 'in/sufficient', 'direct', 'circumstantial'etc., and with the verbs: 'to discover', 'to conceal', 'to destroy', 'to give', 'to present', 'to produce', etc.

10. Common collocations. a) The verbs below are all from Text 1. Write, from the text, nouns that collocate with them and translate them into your own language. Some of the verbs go with more than one noun.

Verb Noun/s Verb Noun/s to settle a dispute to overrule to exercise to amend to hear to retain to commit to overturn to try to challenge to hold to allow to consider to dismiss to discharge to quash to merit to reduce to preside at/over to review b) Choose six 'verb + noun' pairs from above and write sentences to illustrate their meaning in legal contexts.

11. Contrasting information. Language use a) When introducing new information, you can contrast it with what your readers already know. Read the two examples below and say which information is new and which is old. Where in the sentence does the new information come? Why is the relative clause bracketed commas? Unlike all the other courts in the land, which are bound by decision of the higher courts, the House of Lords is not bound by its own decisions. In contrast to the High Court, whose decisions are binding on all interior courts, the magistrates’ courts’ decisions cannot become binding precedents. b) Read the information below that shows how the principle of the binding precedent works in the English court system. Write four sentences using the pattern above with the prepositions unlike, in contrast to, as opposed to and relative clauses. DECISIONS OF: the House of Lords are binding on all lower courts but not on itself (if need not follow its own decision) the Court of Appeal are binding on all lower courts and on itself ( it must (Civil Division) follow its own decisions) the Court of Appeal are binding on all lower courts but not on itself (Criminal Division) the High Court are binding on all lower courts but not on itself the Crown Court cannot become binding precedents the county courts the magistrates' courts

6 Text 2: The Jury

1______England places unusually heavy reliance on its lay judges - magistrates. Another important amateur with judicial functions is the jury, a body of twelve ordinary citizens called for the trial of a particular case. Throughout its history, the jury has attracted both the highest praise and severe criticism. The debate has largely centred on three areas. First, there is the issue of the jury's competence. Opponents argue that the judge, by reason of his training, experience and intelligence', is better equipped to understand law and facts and pass a fair judgment than lay persons without legal training and experience. They refer to the practice of those continental countries that do without juries. Supporters, in contrast, maintain that the jury as a group has wisdom and life experience beyond that of its individual members; that its inexperience in legal matters in fact secures a fresh perception of each case, avoiding judicial stereotypes. Second, there is the debate about the jury's interpretation of the law. Critics complain that juries often refuse to follow the law, either because they do not understand it or because they do not like it. However, some studies have shown that judges would have reached the same decision without a jury in four-fifths of all verdicts. And where juries deviate from the judge, this is due to their own subtle, and not always conscious, sense of justice, because they rely on the spirit, rather than the letter, of the law. And finally, defenders of the jury system believe that the jury provides an important civic experience encouraging people 'to give to the community'. They also believe that the jury guarantees the integrity of the whole system of justice since twelve people are more difficult to bribe than one. However, this is countered by the arguments that jury duty imposes an unfair burden on the citizen, that the jury is expensive and contributes to delays that plague civil litigation.

2______Normally juries consist of twelve members (eight in the county court). They are selected at random from electoral rolls to achieve a fair cross section of the community. Jurors must be between the ages of 18 and 70, ordinarily resident in the UK for five years since the age of 13. They are not paid but given expenses while they are on jury service, which is usually for about two weeks but may last much longer, especially in civil trials. In cases involving national security and in terrorist cases, checks are made on prospective jurors on police and Special Branch records (this is called jury vetting). These powers, however, are not fixed in a statute or precedent but are governed by the Attorney-General's guidelines. Some groups of people are ineligible for jury service, such as mentally ill persons; and some are disqualified, such as persons who have been imprisoned for more than three months within the preceding ten years. A sentence of five years' imprisonment or more disqualifies a person for life. For the rest of society jury service is compulsory. Until 2003 there were numerous exemptions and automatic rights of excusals for many categories of people, such as MPs and members of the House of Lords, members of the medical profession and armed forces and so on but they have all been swept away. The reason for keeping lawyers, policemen and the like off juries was the fear that they might unduly influence their fellow jurors but today people no longer defer to professionals or those in positions of authority the way they once did. At the inception of a trial the law permits trial counsel to challenge prospective jurors for cause (excuse from service by giving reasons). Unlike the prosecution, which has unlimited rights of challenge, the defence's right is limited to two challenges. Both counsel ask candidates questions like 'Have you read or heard anything about the case in the media?' - to exclude any undue prejudice. If any bias surfaces as a result of questioning, the person is excused from the panel. If a juror happens to know the defendant or a witness, this too may be a cause for excusa/. In a US court the lawyers are allowed to question potential jurors about their beliefs but in Britain this is not permitted. Therefore, unlike in the USA, where the lawyers' examination may extend for several weeks and several hundred people may be questioned to select 12 men and women and a few reserves, in England a jury is 'usually 'sworn in' in a few minutes.

3______Originally, the jurors were local witnesses and they passed judgment on the basis of what they themselves knew. Now they determine the facts of the case entirely on the basis of the evidence presented in court. The job of the jury is to decide questions of fact (to 'find the facts'), and it is the judge's responsibility to guide them on questions of law. This distinction between fact and law is very important.

7 In a murder trial, for example, questions of law would be: just what the crime of murder means in English law, what evidence is admissible under the rules of evidence, what precisely the prosecution has to prove, what law should be applied in' reaching the verdict. All this will be explained to the jury by the judge. And questions of fact would be: whether the defendant did indeed commit murder, whether the witnesses are telling the truth, whether the alleged events actually took place, etc. - these questions are decided by the jurors themselves.

4______Trial by jury is conducted under the supervision of a judge. He decides what the jury mayor may not hear under the rules of evidence. Since factual matters are to be decided by a body of laypersons, it is important that they should not be misled by evidence that is plausible on the surface but may be misleading. When instructing the jury at the end of the trial, the judge will summarise the evidence and discuss its weight, as well as explain what law they should apply in reaching the verdict. When the evidence presented is unsatisfactory, the judge may withdraw the issue from the jury and direct the jury to acquit a defendant (in a criminal trial) or find for either claimant or defendant (in a civil trial). However, he cannot direct a guilty verdict in a criminal trial. Finally, if the jury's verdict is manifestly against the weight of the evidence, it may be set aside and a new trial ordered but this is an exceedingly rare occurrence. In 2001 the Court of Appeal set aside the jury verdict for the first time in 100 years (Grobbelaar v News Group Newspaper LTD & ANR).

5______In criminal cases the jury is restricted to deciding issues of guilt, while punishment is generally left to the judge. In civil cases the jury decides both issues of liability and the amount of damages. Traditionally, the jury was required to reach its decision with unanimity but since 1967 majority verdicts have been allowed. The jury must strive for unanimity for at least two hours; if unanimity is not possible, the judge may accept the following majorities: 11 -1, 10 - 2, 10 - 1,9 - 1. When the required number of jurors cannot agree on a verdict, the judge declares a mistrial, which means that the case, unless it is withdrawn, must be tried anew. Once juries have been sent out to consider their verdicts, they no longer have to stay late at court until they have finished or be taken to hotels. The judge may now permit them to separate - go home and come back to court to carryon their work the next day.

6______In English law, investigation is not permitted into the deliberations of a jury. Jurors deliberate in secrecy, reach a decision by a vote and present their verdict without giving reasons. Not only are jurors forbidden to discuss the case with outsiders during the trial, they are not allowed to comment on the case or their deliberations after the trial. If they do, they will be facing a prison sentence for contempt of court. By contrast, in the United States a juror stepping out of a courtroom at the end of a trial is free to comment on the case and the verdict and the deliberations without fearing prosecution. The Contempt of Court Act 1981 makes it an 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 in any legal proceedings'. Its main purpose is to prevent jury tampering, or 'jury nobbling', the practice of bribing or threatening jurors in order to secure a particular verdict, but it also, among other things, inhibits jurors from selling their story. From time to time recommendations are made in England to conduct controlled research into jury deliberations, for example, by means of bugging (unobtrusive recording so jurors would not know that they were being recorded). But many lawyers think that research of this kind is a can of worms best kept unopened. They fear that the mere fact of such research might damage public confidence by sowing doubt about the integrity of verdicts; it might also inhibit jurors from expressing their views frankly, out of fear of potential reprisal. Legitimate research is restricted to general questions in questionnaires or to simulation studies. Questionnaires concentrate on acquittal rates and the levels of perverse verdicts (verdicts given by juries which refused to follow the judge on a point of law). Simulation studies employ focus groups or shadow juries. Twelve people are hired from the community to attend a mock trial session. The lawyers summarise their arguments, examine or cross-examine 'witnesses' (who are often actors), then watch the shadow jury deliberate through a two-way mirror. From this exercise, important information may be developed as to what life experiences make a favourable juror, what arguments are doomed to failure and what statements are likely to carry the day.

8 7 ______Despite all the controversy surrounding the jury, in practice its role has been greatly diminished over recent years. If before the Common Law Procedure Act 1854 most civil cases were tried by jury, by the beginning of the 1990s jury trial occurred in considerably less than 1 per cent of all civil cases. A surprisingly small proportion of criminal cases go for jury trial. The majority are tried in the magistrates' court, and only 3 per cent go to the Crown Court. Taking into account that more than 60 per cent of the accused plead guilty when the case reaches the Crown Court (thus eliminating the need for the jury), as well as cases where the judge directs an acquittal, less than 1 per cent of all criminal trials result in a iury verdict. At presentl the United States is the home of the jury system for both criminal and civil cases: more than 90 per cent of all jury trials in the world occur in the United States. From time to time attempts are made by the government to reduce further the right to trial by jury, but they meet with fierce resistance from those who believe that any further shrinking of the right of trial by jury would amount to a serious denial of a basic civil liberty. According to a representative study conducted in 2002, 85 per cent of 900 people questioned trusted a jury to come to the right decision and 82 per cent felt that jury trial was fairer than trial by a judge. Remarkably, 69 per cent against 27 would prefer to retain jury trial rather than cut costs (The Times, February 5, 2002). But despite the high regard the public have for the jury trial, it is hard to deny the fact that in England the system is in decline. In 1956 Lord Devlin, one of the most distinguished judges of the twentieth century, wrote, 'The first object of any tyrant in Whitehall would be to make Parliament utterly subservient to his will; and the next to overthrow or diminish trial by jury, for no tyrant could afford to leave a subject's freedom in the hands of twelve of his countrymen. So that 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.' Jury trial statistics are a sad reflection on these fine words.

8______Jurors are human, they do not leave their biases and prejudices at the door when they enter the courtroom. Prosecution and defence, for their part, try to mould and sh~pe juror attitudes. But there is another big-time player not mentioned in law books that may influence considerably the outcome of the case. When a big criminal case happens and hundreds of journalists descend upon a courtroom, one may wonder who the real jury in the case is. Or, as someone has noticed: 'Once the media decides guilt or innocence, it is hard to change that decision.'

14. Text 2 comprehension questions Read the text again and answer these questions. 1 What are the main arguments of jury detractors? 2 What are the main arguments of jury proponents? 3 Who can and who cannot serve on a jury? 4 What two procedures interfere with the randomness of the jury? 5 Why is it necessary for a judge to give instructions to the jury at the end of the trial? 6 Why is research into jury deliberations forbidden? 7 What are the main differences between England and the USA with respect to jury service?

15. Text 2 true-false statements Confirm or refute these statements. Begin with a short answer, e.g. 'Yes, it is/has/does, etc.' or 'No, it isn't/hasn't/doesn't, etc.' and add one sentence to prove your point. 1 The defence and the prosecution have equal rights of challenge. 2 Ex-convicts may be eligible for jury service. 3 Some jurors lose a lot of money by doing jury service. 4 The judge has no control over the jury during the hearing. 5 In England the jury has all but disappeared. 6 Juries are not a truly representative cross-section of society.

16. Definitions Language use Match the following concepts (1 - 7) with their defining words (a - g). Then write full definitions. Do not borrow dictionary definitions. When you have finished, check that your definitions contain verbs instead of dashes.

9 Concept Defining word 1 Jury a the duty… 2 Jury service b a legal procedure whereby… 3 Jury vetting c the decision… 4 Jury challenge d a group… 5 Verdict e a verdict… 6 Unanimous verdict f the practice of… 7 Jury tampering g the examination of…

17. 'Abolish' and synonyms

a) First, read the explanations in the box and underline the key words that serve as clues to meaning. For example, for 'abolish' you should underline 'a law. system 'and 'for a long time';for 'repeal' - only 'a law',etc. After this, complete the gaps in the exercise. One word has to be used twice. Abolish - officially end a law, system etc, esp. one that has existed for a long time; repeal officially put an end to a law; eliminate - completely get rid of sth unnecessary or unwanted; eradicate - completely get rid of sth harmful such as an illness, a social problem; erase - destroy completely; discontinue - stop sth that has been done regularly over a period of time, such as a course of medical treatment, a public service; dismiss - reject an opinion, argument without even considering it; dismiss charges against sb.

Abolish - repeal – eliminate – eradicate – erase - discontinue - dismiss 1 He always______any suggestions that his company was in difficulty. 2 Nine countries ______their anti-discrimination laws last year. 3 positive efforts to______every trace of discrimination. 4 You can______those two files. 5 to______capital punishment. 6 to ______all trade barriers between the two countries. 7 to______the new bus route. 8 On a technicality, the judge______the case. b) Write 7 sentences to illustrate the meaning of these words.

18. Complex sentences Punctuation In the examples below, first underline the subordinate clauses, then add commas where necessary. 1.Although certain courts exercise a purely civil or criminal jurisdiction most English courts hear both civil and criminal cases. 2. Summary offences are called so because they must be tried speedily by the most convenient court. 3. When the accused pleads 'not guilty' the case will always be heard in the presence of a jury. 4. The trial can be closed to the public when for instance a witness might be threatened by someone watching the proceedings. 5. Since there is no rigid separation between the legislative and the executive powers in England it is crucial that they should be subject to outside checks. 6. If magistrates feel that the case merits a more severe sentence they can send the convicted person to the Crown Court for sentencing. 7. A re-trial can be ordered if there is 'new and compelling evidence of guilt'. 8. A re-trial can be ordered if the court is satisfied that the acquittal was 'tainted' because a juror or witness had been intimidated.

19. Law in fiction Law Read these extracts from John Mortimer's books and write an email explaining the underlined words and phrases to a friend who needs help with legal terminology. If necessary, look at the example in Chapter 2.

Rumpole also prides himself on his worldly wisdom and the fact that he can see further through a brick wall than anyone else in the legal profession, the entire (1) Bench of 'Judges, including (2) the Lord Chancellor, the Master of the Rolls and (3) the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary.

10 Denis's case was to come up for committal at the South London (4) Magistrates' Court before 'Skimpy' Simpson, (5) whose lack of success at the Bar had driven him to a job as a stipendiary beak. His nickname had been eamed by the fact that he had not, (6) within living memory, been known to splash out on a round of drinks in Pommeroy's Wine Bar. I!- I!- I!- The daffodils in the Temple gardens gave way to roses, and a date was fixed at London Sessions for the trial of a popular MP on a charge of possession of a class-B drug. He had taken my advice and (7) opted for a Jury.