Lecture # 19 Juries By: Salik Aziz Vaince [0313-7575311]  Introduction . The concept of the jury system was probably imported into Britain after the Norman Conquest, though its early functions were quite different from those today. . Early jurors in England acted as witnesses providing sources of information on local affairs. But they gradually came to be used as adjudicators in both civil and criminal disputes. . Under Henry II, the jury began to take on an important function, moving from reporting on events they knew about, to deliberating on produced by the parties involved in a dispute. Gradually it became accepted that a juror should know as little as possible about the facts of the case before the trial, and which is the position today. . The jury is considered as fundamental part of the English legal system, even though only a minority of the cases is tried by the jury in these days. . In a sense it plays a vital role in ensuring that the criminal justice system works for the benefit of the public rather than for the benefit of unjust leaders. It promotes not only a healthy criminal justice system but also a healthy society, where political leaders cannot abuse criminal justice system to silence their opponents. . It has attained such an importance that Lord Devlin wrote in 1956: “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 plays a vital role in the criminal justice system in England and Wales and many other countries in the world. But the constitutional position of the English jury is in danger because of the unwritten constitution. In England, because of unwritten constitution, the right to trial by jury is not contained in the constitution. . Generally, it is governed by ordinary Act of the parliament, which can be amended by the Parliament any time. So the government of the day could alter or even abolish the right to jury trial. However, due to the political barriers, the government is very cautious in doing this. . 1974 is the main statute governing the present day jury. Currently, the role of the English jury is almost entirely limited to the more serious criminal cases, but juries occasionally sit in civil trials as well. . History of the jury system . Juries have been used in the legal system for over 1,000 years. There is evidence that they were used even before the Norman Conquest. However, in 1215 when trial by ordeal was condemned by the Church and (in the same year) the included the recognition of a person’s right to trial by ‘the lawful judgment of his peers’, juries became the usual method of trying criminal cases. Originally they were used for providing local knowledge and information, and acted more as witnesses than ©VLC Publishers www.vlc.com.pk Page 1

decision-makers. By the middle of the fifteenth century, juries had become independent assessors and assumed their modern role as deciders of fact. . Jury service . A member of a jury listens to evidence and decides on the guilt or innocence of a defendant in a Crown court trial. They are part of a group of 12 jury member chosen totally at random from the electoral register. . A jury member will receive a “summons” to do jury service which asks for detailed information about the citizen. This must be returned within 7 days. Jury service last for 10 working days. Trials last for on average between 2-3 days so jury members may sit on more than one case. . Jury service is unpaid. However jury members can claim for travel expenses, meals and loss of earnings. If the jury member does not turn up for jury service this will a criminal offence with a fine of Upto £1000. . The rules governing who can qualify to be a jury member are contained in the Juries Act 1974. . Meaning . The word jury is derived from the French word ‘juror’, which means "to swear an oath." . Definition . A Jury is groups of citizens which hears the testimony in legal disputes and apply their common-sense to the matter of determining the guilt or innocence of someone accused of an offence. . Independence of the jury . The independence of the jury became even more firmly established following Bushell’s Case (1670). In that case several jurors refused to convict Quaker activists of unlawful assembly. . The trial judge would not accept the not guilty verdict, and ordered the jurors to resume their deliberations without food or drink. When the jurors persisted in their refusal to convict, the court fined them and committed them to prison until the fines were paid. On appeal, the court of commons pleas ordered the release of the jurors, holding that jurors could not be punished for their verdict. . This established that the jury was the sole arbitrator of fact and the judge could not challenge their decision. . A more modern-day example demonstrating that judges must respect the independence of the jury is R v McKenna (1960). In that case the judge at the trial had threatened the jury that if they did not return a verdict within another 10 minutes they would be locked up all night. The jury then returned a verdict of guilty, but the defendant’s conviction was quashed on appeal because of the judge’s interference.  The function of the jury . The function of the jury is to weigh up the evidence and to decide what the true facts of the case are or what actually happened. . The judge gives the direction to the jury on the relevant law, which the jury has to apply to the facts of the case in order to reach a verdict. If it is a criminal case and the jury has given a verdict of guilty, then the judge will decide on appropriate sentence. . In civil cases, juries function is to decide on how much money should be awarded in damages.

©VLC Publishers www.vlc.com.pk Page 2

. Modern day use of the jury . Only a small percentage of cases are tried by jury today. However, juries are used in the following courts: • Crown court for criminal trials on indictment (charging a person with some offense) • High Court, Queen’s Bench Division (but only for certain types of cases) • Country Court (for similar cases to the Queen’s Bench Division) • Coroners’ Courts (in some cases) . Juries in criminal cases . The most important use of juries today is in the Crown Court where they decide whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty. . Jury trials, however, account for less than one per cent of all criminal trials. This is because 97% of cases are dealt with in the Magistrate’s Court and of the cases that go to the crown court; about two out of every three defendants will plead guilty. Also some of the cases at the crown court, in which the defendant has entered a not guilty plea, will not go before a jury as the case will be discharged by judge without any trial. This occurs where the crown prosecution service withdraws the charges, possibly because a witness refuses to give evidence. A jury in the Crown court has 12 members. . Use of juries at a glance Court Type of case Role Number on jury . Crown court . Serious criminal cases: . Decide verdict . 12 . e.g. , , . Guilty or not guilty . High court . . Decide liability . 12 . . If find for the . Malicious prosecution claimant also decide . Any case alleging amount of damages . County court . Defamation . Decide liability . 8 . False imprisonment . If find for the . Malicious prosecution claimant also decide . Any case alleging fraud amount of damages . Coroners . Deaths: . Decide cause of . 7 – 11 court . In custody death . As the result of an act or omission by a police officer . Where the death was caused by a notifiable accident, poisoning or disease  Juries in civil cases . Juries in civil cases are now only used in very limited circumstances, but where they are used they have a dual role. They decide whether the claimant has proved his case or not, then, if they decide that the claimant has won the case, the jury also go on to decide the amount of damages that the defendant should pay to the claimant.

©VLC Publishers www.vlc.com.pk Page 3

. Up to 1854 all common law actions were tried by jury, but from 1854 the parties could agree not to use a jury and gradually their use declined. Then in 1933 the Administration of Justice Act limited the right to use a jury, so that juries could not be used in disputes over breach of . The present rules for when juries may be used in civil cases are set out in s 69 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 for High Court cases, and s 66 of the County Courts Act 1984 for cases in that court. These Acts state that parties have the right to jury trial only in the following types of cases: • Defamation, i.e. cases of libel and slander (this is the most frequent use of juries) • False imprisonment • Malicious prosecution • Fraud . All these cases involve character or reputation and it is for this reason that jury trial has been retained. Even for these cases a jury trial can be refused by the judge if the case involves complicated documents or accounts or scientific evidence and is therefore thought to be unsuitable for jury trial. . Use of juries in personal injury cases . In other civil cases in the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court the parties can apply to a judge for trial by jury, but it is very rare for such a request to be granted. This follows the case of Ward v James (1966), where the plaintiff was claiming for injuries caused in a road crash. In this case the court of Appeal laid down guidelines for personal injury cases. These are: • Personal injury cases should normally be tried by a judge sitting alone, because such cases involve assessing compensatory damages which have to have regard to the conventional scales of damages. • There have to exceptional circumstances before the court will allow a jury to be used in such a case. . The decision in Ward v James effectively stopped the use of juries for personal injury cases. The following cases show the courts have proved very reluctant to let juries be used. In Singh v London Underground (1990) a request for a jury to try a personal injury case arising from the King’s Cross underground fire was refused. It was held that the case was unsuitable for jury trial because it involved such wide issues and technical points. . The case of H v Ministry of Defence (1991) further reinforced the rule in Ward v James; the defendant was a soldier who had received negligent medical treatment necessitating the amputation of part of his penis. He applied for jury trial, but it was held that jury trial for a personal injury claim would only be allowed in very exceptional circumstances and this case was not such a one. The court said that an example of when jury trial might be appropriate was where the injuries resulted from someone deliberately abusing their authority and there might well be a claim for exemplary damages. . Fewer than ten cases are heard by a jury each year, and almost all of these are for defamation. . Trial by jury in the county court had become very rare, but since 1991 with the changes in the jurisdiction (defamation actions can be transferred for trial to the county court) there are occasionally cases in which a jury is used. Where a jury is used in the High Court there will be 12 members; in the county court a jury consists of 8.

©VLC Publishers www.vlc.com.pk Page 4

. Coroner’s court . In these courts a jury of between seven and 11 members may be used to enquire into deaths. The coroners and Justice Act 2009 has provision for changes to the use of juries in coroner’s courts. Under this a jury will only be used if: . There is reason to suspect that the decreased died while in custody and that either: • The death was a violent or unnatural one, or • The cause of death is unknown . The death resulted from an act or omission of a police officer . The death was caused by a notifiable accident, poisoning or disease.  Jury qualifications . Basic qualifications . The qualifications for jury service were revised in 1972 following the Morris Committee Report on jury service. Before this date there was a property qualification – in order to be a juror it was necessary to be the owner or tenant of a dwelling. This restriction meant that women and young people who were less likely to own or rent property were prevented from serving on a jury. . The Morris Committee thought that being a juror should be the counterpart of being a citizen. As a result, the qualification for jury service were widened in the Criminal Justice Act 1972 and based on the right to vote. The present qualifications are set out in the Juries Act 1974 (as amended) so that to qualify for jury service a person must be: • Aged between 18 and 70 • Registered as a parliamentary or local Govt. elector • Ordinarily resident in the , the or the Isle (small island) of Man for at least five years since their thirteenth birthday and must not be: • A mentally disordered person, or • Disqualified from jury service. . Disqualification . Some criminal convictions will disqualify a person from jury service. The type of sentence and the length of a prison sentence decide whether the person is disqualified and the period for which that disqualification lasts. Disqualified permanently from jury service are those who at any time have been sentenced to: • Imprisonment for life, detention for life or custody for life. • Detention during Her Majesty’s pleasure or during the pleasure of the Secretary of State • To imprisonment for public protection or detention for public protection • An extended sentence • A term of detention of five years or more. . Those in the following categories are disqualified for 10 years: • At any time in last 10 years served a sentence of imprisonment • At any time in last 10 years had a suspended sentence passed on them

©VLC Publishers www.vlc.com.pk Page 5

• At any time in the last 10 years had a community order or other community sentence passed on them . In addition anyone who is currently on bail in criminal proceedings is disqualified from sitting as a juror. . If a disqualified person fails to disclose that fact and turns up for jury service, they may be fined up to £5,000. . Mentally disordered persons . A mentally disordered person is defined in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 as: • A person who suffers or has suffered from mental illness, psychopathic disorder, mental handicap (Injured permanently)or severe mental handicap and on account of that condition either: • Is resident in a hospital or similar institution: or • Regularly attends for treatment by a medical practitioner. • A person for the time being under guardianship under s 7 of the Mental Health Act 1983. • A person who, under part 7 of that Act, has been determined by a judge to be incapable of administrating his property and affairs. . There are criticisms that the mentally ill person for the purposes of the Juries Act 1974 is likely to be amended in the future in answer to the criticism. . Lack of capacity . A judge at the court may discharge a person from being a juror for the lack of capacity for the trial. - Does not understand English - Blind, unable to see plans and photographs . The mere fact of disability does not prevent someone from acting as a juror. The judge can only discharge the juror if he is satisfied that the disability means that the juror is not capable of acting effectively as a juror. . Deaf juror . In June 1995 a deaf man was prevented from sitting on a jury because the tone of their voices was important, despite wishing to bring sign language interpreter. The judge pointed out that would mean an extra person in the jury room (only 12 allowed) and this was not allowed by law.  The right to be excused from jury service . Prior to April 2004 people in certain essential occupations, such as doctors and pharmacists, had a right to be excused jury service if they did not want to do it. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 abolished this category. This means that doctors and other medical staff are no longer able to refuse to do jury service, though they can apply for a discretionary excusal. . Members of the forces . Full-time serving members of the forces may be excused from jury service if their absence affects the service.

©VLC Publishers www.vlc.com.pk Page 6

. Discretionary excusals . Anyone who has the problems which makes it very difficult but has discretion to grant excusal on sufficiently good reasons. Such as: - Too ill - Disability - Mother with a small baby - Business appointments - Examinations - Holidays that has been booked. . If a person is not excused from jury they must attend on the date set or they may be fined up to £1,000 for non-attendance. . Lawyers and police on juries . There used to be a category of people who were ineligible for jury service. This included judges and others who had been involved in the administration of justice within the previous 10 years. This category was also abolished by the Criminal Justice Act 2003. This means that judges, lawyers, police etc. are eligible to serve on juries. Many people feel that this could lead to bias or to a legally well – qualified juror influencing the rest of the jury. . [R v Abdroikof, R v Green and R v Williamson HL (2007)] . Facts: The House was asked whether a jury in criminal trials containing variously a Crown Prosecution Service solicitor, or a police officer would have the appearance of bias. In Abdroikof, the presence of the police officer on the jury was discovered only late, but there was no conflict over police evidence. In Green the victim was an officer from the same borough as the juror whose status as a police officer was only discovered after trial. In Williamson, the juror had served with the Crown Prosecution service for many years. . Held: Actual bias is always hard to prove, and was not alleged here, but the appearance of bias was also generally unacceptable. Parliament having decided that people involved in the criminal processes should be jurors, the courts should accept that so far as was consistent with the duty to ensure a fair trial. The cases involving the police officer victim, and the CPS solicitor were remitted for the convictions to be quashed. . [R v Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy ([1924] 1 KB 256, [1923] All ER Rep 233)] . Facts: In 1923 McCarthy, a motorcyclist was involved in a road accident which resulted in his prosecution before a magistrate’s court for dangerous driving. Unknown to the defendant and his solicitor, the clerk to the justices was a member of the firm of solicitors acting in a civil claim against the defendant arising out of the accident that had given rise to the prosecution. The clerk retired with the justices, who returned to convict the defendant. . On learning of the clerk's provenance, the defendant applied to have the conviction quashed. The justices swore affidavits stating that they had reached their decision to convict the defendant without consulting their clerk.

©VLC Publishers www.vlc.com.pk Page 7

. Held: This is a leading English case on the impartiality and recusal of judges. It is famous for its precedence in establishing the principle that the mere appearance of bias is sufficient to overturn a judicial decision. It also brought into common parlance the oft-quoted aphorism "Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done." . Judges on jury service . In June 2004 (just two months after the rules on jury service changed) a judge from the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Dyson, was summoned to attend as a juror. This prompted the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Woolf, to issue observations to judges who are called for jury service. These point out that: • A judge serves on a jury as part of his duty as a private citizen • Excusal from jury service will only be granted in extreme circumstance • Deferral of jury service to a later date should be sought where a judge has judicial commitments which make it particularly inconvenient for him to do jury service at the time he was called to do so • At court if a judge knows the presiding judge or other person in the case, he should raise this with the jury bailiff or a member of the court staff if he considers it could interfere with his responsibilities as a juror • It is a matter of discretion for an individual judge sitting as a juror as to whether he discloses the fact of his judicial office to the other members of the jury • Judges must follow the directions given to the jury by the trial judge on the law and should avoid the temptation to correct guidance which they believe to be inaccurate as this is outside their role as a juror.  Selecting a jury . At each crown court there is an official who is responsible for summoning enough jurors to try the case that will be heard in each two week period. This official will arrange for names to be selected at random from the electoral registers, for the area which the court covers. This is done through a computer selection at a central office. It is necessary to summons more than 12 jurors as most courts have more than one court-room and it will not be known how many of those summoned are disqualified – or will be excused. In fact, at the bigger courts up to 150 summonses may be sent out each fortnight. . Those summonsed must notify the court if there is any reason why they should not or cannot attend. All others are expected to attend for two weeks jury service, though, of course, if the case they are trying goes on more than two weeks they will have to stay until the trial is completed. Where it is known that a trial may be exceptionally long, such as a complicated fraud trial, potential jurors are asked if they will be able to serve for such a long period. . Vetting . Once the list of potential jurors is known, both the prosecution and the defence have the right to see that list. In some cases it may be decided that this pool of potential jurors should be ‘vetted (examine carefully). . There are two types of vetting

©VLC Publishers www.vlc.com.pk Page 8

. Routine police checks . Routine police checks are made on prospective (related to the future) jurors to eliminate those disqualified. . Regina -v- Sheffield Crown Court ex parte Brownlow; CA 1980 . Facts: Two police officers were being brought to trial, charged with occasioning bodily harm. They applied to the trial judge for an order directing the prosecution to inform the defence whether any members of the jury panel had criminal convictions, and if so, to give details. The trial judge made the order. The court considered a request from the Chief Constable to be allowed to vet a jury to be empanelled to hear a case against two police officers. . Held: Lord Denning MR (dissenting in part) said that that the word ‘related’ can mean ‘closely related to’, or indirectly or distantly related to, or somewhere in between. . [R v Mason (1980)] [Juries - challenge - jury panel having criminal convictions] . Facts: D was convicted of and handling stolen goods. Before the trial, the police had checked the local criminal records and, unknown to the defence; they had supplied counsel for the prosecution with the names of those called for jury service who had been convicted of criminal offences. When the jury was being empanelled, counsel asked four members of the panel to stand by for the Crown. Three of those had criminal convictions although at least one of them was not disqualified by his conviction from jury service. D was convicted of two offences of burglary and two offences of handling stolen goods. . Held: Both the Crown and the defence had a right to challenge a member of the jury panel. . The random selection of jurors had always been subject to the qualification that the judge and the parties were to decide which members of the jury panel were suitable to serve on a jury. . The ancient right of the Crown, confirmed by sections 12 (5) and 21 (5) of the Juries Act 1974, was not subject to there being a provable valid objection until such time as the jury panel was exhausted. . Therefore, there was nothing irregular in prosecuting counsel requesting a member of the panel to "stand by" because he had a conviction and, accordingly, there was no material irregularity in the course of the trial. . Per curiam: Since it is a criminal offence for a person to serve on a jury knowing that he is disqualified for the police to scrutinize the list of potential jurors to see if any are disqualified is to do no more than to perform their usual function of preventing the commission of offences. [Guilty] . The well-established practice of supplying the prosecution with information about potential jurors' convictions is not unlawful. . Jurors background . A wider check is made on a juror’s background and political affiliations. This practice was brought to light by the ‘ABC’ trial in 1978 where two journalists and a soldier were charged with collecting secret information’s. It was discovered that the jury had been vetted for their loyalty. The trial was stopped and a new trial ordered before a fresh jury. Following these cases, the Attorney-General published guidelines in 1980 on when political vetting of jurors should take place. (Revised in 1988 in a practice Note)

©VLC Publishers www.vlc.com.pk Page 9

. Vetting can only be carried out with the Attorney-General’s express permission. . Vetting should only be used in exceptional cases involving: • National security where part of the evidence is likely to be given in camera • Terrorist cases . Selection at court . The jurors are usually divided into groups of 15 and allocated to a court. At the start of the trial the court clerk will select 12 out of these 15 at random. If there are not enough jurors to hear all the cases scheduled for that day at the court, there is a special power to select anyone who is qualified to be a juror from people passing by in the streets or from local offices or businesses. This is called ‘praying a talesman’. It is very unusual to use this power but it was used at Middlesex Crown Court in January 1992 when about half the jury panel failed to turn up after the New Year’s holiday and there were not sufficient jurors to try the cases. . Challenging . Once the court clerk has selected the panel of 12 jurors, these jurors come into the jury box to be sworn in as jurors. At this point, before the jury is sworn in, both the prosecution and defence have certain rights to challenge one or more of the jurors. There are two challenges which can be made and, in addition, the prosecution has a special right of ‘stand by’. These are: • To the array • For cause • Prosecution right to stand by jurors. . To the array . This right to challenge is given by s 5 of the Juries Act 1974 and it is a challenge to the whole jury on the bases that it has been chosen in an unrepresentative or biased way. . [R v Fraser (1987)] . As the defendant was of an ethnic minority background but all the jurors were white. The judge in that case agreed to empanel another jury. . [R v Ford (1989)] [Juries - selection - challenges- selection matter for 'Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice'] . Facts: D was of mixed race and preferred to be called black. D was chased and arrested by a constable, also of mixed race for unlawful use of a motor car. At the Crown Court D applied to the judge for a multiracial jury. The judge, under the misapprehension that counsel was about to use the case as a platform for racial haranguing, refused the application and, later, was intent on stopping defence counsel from asking any question which had any tinged of color in it. . Held: A judge, at common law can prevent individual jurors who were not competent from serving on the jury. This did not include the discharge of competent jurors so as to influence the overall composition of the jury. The essence of the jury system was random selection, and random selection was a matter not for the judge but for the Lord Chancellor in accordance with section 5(1) of the Juries Act 1974. A judge had no power to influence the composition of a jury.

©VLC Publishers www.vlc.com.pk Page 10

. Not guilty because the judge's misunderstanding about unnecessary racial argumentation had led him into unwitting error whereby he prevented counsel from putting questions that he was lawfully entitled to put. . Comment: this case is authority for preventing any meddling with the composition of jury panels, whether for reasons of race or sex. . For cause . This involves challenging the right of an individual juror to sit on the jury. To be successful the challenge must point out a valid reason why that juror should not serve on the jury. An obvious reason is that the juror is disqualified, but a challenge for cause can also be made if the juror knows or is related to a witness or defendant. If such people are not removed from the jury there is a risk that any subsequent conviction could be quashed. . R v Wilson and R v Sprason (1995) [Juries – selection - bias] . Facts: DD were charged with and held on remand, pending their trial, at a local prison where in the kitchens they came into contact with a prison officer. The prison officer’s wife was summoned to sit as juror at D’s trial. She had previously applied to be excused jury service because of her husband's work, but had been refused. . Held: There was a real danger that this juror might consciously or unconsciously have been biased. . Not guilty . Prosecution right to stand by jurors . This is a right that only the prosecution can exercise. It allows the juror who has been stood by to be put to the end of the list of potential jurors, so that they will not be used on the jury unless there are not enough other jurors. The prosecution does not have to give a reason for ‘standing by’ but the Attorney General’s guidelines issued in 1998 make it clear that this power should be used sparingly. . Criticisms of the selection of juries . Use of the electoral register does not always give a representative sample of the population. It excludes some people such as the homeless who cannot register to vote. Also not everyone who is eligible registers to vote this is especially true of the young and ethnic minorities. In 1990 the ‘poll tax’ meant people didn’t register to vote because it was too expensive. - Multi-racial juries – there is no guarantee that there will be any ethnic minority jurors on a particular case and as decided in R v Ford (1989) there is no power for the judge to empanel a multi-racial jury. Ethnic minorities were severely under-represented on juries. - Disqualified jurors - although some checks are carried out many disqualified people fail to disclose this fact and sit on juries. - Excusals – if there are too many discretionary excusals it may lead to an unrepresentative jury. - Prosecution’s right of ‘stand by’ – the prosecution’s right of standby was kept even when the defence’s peremptory challenge was withdrawn. This might be seen as giving the prosecution an advantage in ‘rigging’ the jury, particularly when combined with ‘vetting’.

©VLC Publishers www.vlc.com.pk Page 11

. The Jury’s role in criminal cases . The jury is used only at the Crown Court for cases where the defendant pleads not guilty. This means that a jury is used in about 20,000 cases each year. • The judge decides points of law and the jury decides the facts. • At the end of the prosecution case the judge has the power to direct the jury to acquit the defendant if he decides that in law the prosecution’s evidence has not made out a case against the defendant. This is called a directed acquittal and occurs in about 10% of cases. • If the trial continues the judge will sum up the case at the end, to the jury and direct them on any law involved. The jury retires to a private room and makes the decision on the guilt or innocence of the accused in secret. • Initially the jury must try to come to a unanimous verdict (they all agree). • The judge must accept the jury verdict even if he or she does not agree with it – this long established principle goes back to Bushell’s Case (1670). The jury does not give any reasons for their decision. • If after at least 2 hours they cannot reach a unanimous verdict the judge can call them back to the courtroom and direct them that he now accepts a majority verdict. Where there is a full jury of 12 the verdict can be 10-2 or 11-1 for either guilty or not guilty. If there are 11 jurors the verdict can be 10-1, if there are 10 jurors it can be 9-1. If there are only 9 jurors the verdict must be unanimous. A jury cannot go below nine. • Where the jury convicts a defendant on a majority verdict, the foreman of the jury must announce the numbers both agreeing and disagreeing with the verdict in open court. . Section 8 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 makes disclosure of anything that happened in the jury room a contempt of court which is a criminal offence. This section was brought in because newspapers were paying jurors large sums of money for ‘their story’. . Advantages of Jury Trial . Public confidence - the jury is considered as one of the fundamentals of a democratic society. The right to be tried by one’s peers is a symbol of liberty against the state and has been supported by eminent judges. Lord Devlin said juries are ‘the lamp that shows that freedom lives’. People have confidence in the impartiality and fairness of jury trial. . Jury Equity – as juries are not legal experts, are not bound to follow the precedent of past cases or even Acts of Parliament, and do not have to give reasons for their verdict it is possible for them to decide cases on their idea of ‘fairness’. This is referred to as jury equity . Open system of justice – the use of a jury is viewed as making the legal system more open. Justice is seen to be done as members of the public are involved in a key role and the whole process is public. It also helps to keep the law clearer as points have to be explained to the jury. . Secrecy of the jury room – the jury is free from pressure in their discussion and is protected from outside influences when deciding on the verdict.

©VLC Publishers www.vlc.com.pk Page 12

. Impartiality – a jury should be impartial as they are not connected to anyone in the case. The process of random selection should result in a cross-section of society and this should also lead to an impartial jury as they will have different prejudices and so should cancel out each other’s’ biases. . A jury is not case hardened since they only sit for 2 weeks and are unlikely to try more than three or four cases in that time.  Disadvantages of jury trial . Perverse decisions – the jury can ignore an unjust law however this type of decision can be seen as perverse (contradict) and one which was not justified. Juries have refused to convict in other clear-cut cases such as R v Randle and Pottle (1991) where the defendants were charged with helping the spy George Blake to escape from prison. Their prosecution did not occur until 25 years after the escape, when they wrote about what they had done and the jury acquitted them, possibly as a protest over the time lapse between the offence and the prosecution. . Secrecy – no reasons have to be given for the verdict, so there is no way of knowing if the jury did understand the case and come to the decision for the right reasons. . Racial bias – although jurors have no direct interest in a case, and despite the fact that there are 12 of them, they may still have prejudices which can affect the verdict. Some jurors may be biased against the police . Media Influence – media coverage may influence jurors. This is especially true in high-profile cases where there has been a lot of publicity about police investigations into a case. Prosecution agencies are aware of problems that media coverage can cause. This was noticeable in 2006 when 5 prostitutes were murdered in Ipswich prior to anyone being charged there was already a lot of media coverage. Once a man was charged with the a member of the CPS made a public announcement to the press reminding them that they must be careful in any further coverage of the case. . Lack of understanding – jurors may not understand the case which they are trying. Fraud trials have complex accounts being given in evidence and can create special problems for jurors. Even jurors who can easily cope with other evidence may have difficulty understanding a fraud case. These cases are also often very long so that the jurors have to be able to be away from their own work for months and this can place great strain on jurors and are often boring. . High acquittal rates – juries are criticized because they acquit too many defendants. 60% of those that plead not guilty at the Crown Court are acquitted. Jurors may be against the whole system of jury service as it is fairly unpopular. Jury service can be a strain especially where jurors have to listen to horrific evidence. Jurors in the Rosemary West case were offered counseling after the trial to help them cope with the evidence they had to see and hear. Jury ‘nobbling’ does occur and in some cases jurors have had to be provided with police protection. . Slow and Expensive - The use of juries makes trials slow and expensive. Each point has to be explained carefully to the jury and the whole procedure of the case takes longer.

©VLC Publishers www.vlc.com.pk Page 13

 Problems with using juries in civil cases • Amount of damages – juries in civil cases decide both the liability of the parties in the case and also the amount of damages which will be awarded. The awards vary greatly as each jury has its ideas and does not follow past cases. The amount therefore is totally unpredictable which makes it difficult for lawyers to advice on settlements. • Unreasoned decision – the jury does not have to give a reason either for its decision or for the amount it awards. • Bias – In some defamation cases the claimants and/or the defendants may be public figures so that jurors will know and possibly hold views about them. Alternatively there is the fact that the defendant in a defamation case is often a newspaper and jurors may be biased against the press or may feel that ‘they can afford to pay’. • Cost – civil cases are expensive and the use of a jury adds to this as the case is likely to last longer.  Alternatives to trial by jury . Trial by single judge . The method of trial in the majority of civil cases which is generally regarded as producing a fairer and more predictable result. . Used in – known as the Diplock Courts and were brought in on the recommendation of Lord Diplock to replace jury trial because of the special problems of threats and jury nobbling that existed between the different sectarian parties. . However there appears less public confidence in the use of judges to decide all serious criminal cases because judges may become case hardened and prosecution-minded. . A panel of judges . Some continental countries try cases using a panel of three or five judges sitting together. This allows for a balance of views instead of the verdict of one person. . However it still leaves the problems of judges becoming case-hardened and prosecution minded and coming from an elite background. . There are not sufficient judges and our system of legal training and appointment would need a radical overhaul to implement this proposal. . It would also be expensive . A judge plus lay assessors . Under this system the judge and two lay assessors would make the decision together. . This is used in Scandinavian countries and provides the legal expertise and the lay participation in the legal system by ordinary members of the public. . The lay people could be drawn from the general public in the same way as selecting juries or a special panel of assessors could be drawn up as in tribunal cases. . A mini-jury . If the jury is to remain then it might be possible to have a smaller number of jurors.

©VLC Publishers www.vlc.com.pk Page 14

. In many continental countries the jury has only 9 members. . Alternatively a jury of 6 could be used for less serious criminal cases that at the moment have a full jury trial as occurs in some American States. . Arguments in favor of jury system - Jury best reflect the views of the society because of random selection from a wide range of population. When a person's liberty is at stake it is a matter of principle that s/he should be tried by his/her peers. - The jury is regarded by the public as the ‘bulwark of individual liberties'. - Fact-finding is a matter of common sense and does not require any specialized legal training - The opinion of the 12 jurors is better than the single opinion of the judge since it will more likely to prevent the individual biases. - It can be totally independent because it is unaccountable. - Juries are barometers of public feeling on the state of law, e.g. by deliberately acquitting against the weight of the evidence to express disapproval of a ‘bad' or ‘unpopular' law. - There is no satisfactory alternative to a lay jury. - The presence of the lay jury ensures that the proceedings are kept simple. . Arguments raised against the jury system - The argument that due to the random selection, a jury represents the society is deceptive as the juries can comprise only to those, who are able to act as juror at the end of the selection process. - The jury is an uneducated body in the law and is often unable to weigh evidence properly and to understand certain complex matters. - The jury is not suitable for the complex fraud cases and these cases very often cause problem for the lay jury. The Roskill Report (1986) recommended the replacement of the jury in such cases by a judge sitting with expert assessors. - Juries are often unable to understand the more complex distinction in the law, such as the distinction between murder and manslaughter. - Jurors may be dominated by two or three strong minded individuals in the jury. - It is a fact that juries acquit proportionately more defendant than the magistrates do. Many critics of the jury system argue that this is a major failing on the part of juries, arising either from their inability to perform their function properly, or from their sympathy with defendants, or both. - Jurors may be biased for or against certain groups- e.g. they may favor attractive member of the opposite sex, or be prejudiced against the police in cases of malicious prosecution or false imprisonment. - It is not possible to guarantee that there has been absolutely no tempering with the jury. - The unaccountability of the jury by virtue of the secrecy of the jury room is against the democratic principles.

©VLC Publishers www.vlc.com.pk Page 15

. Relevant Case Laws

ABC Trial (1978) [Juries - vetting] DDD (two journalists and a soldier) were alleged to have revealed government secrets by exposing activities at GCHQ. During the trial it was revealed that the Attorney-General's Guidelines of 1974 were in existence and had been used since 1974. Held: A retrial was ordered. Guilty: The journalists were acquitted of spying but found guilty of disclosure of defence information. The signals expert received a suspended sentence. Comment: The case is called the ABC Trial because of the government's to rename a key army witness "Colonel B".

Abdroikof, R v [2007] [Juries - composition] HL DDD challenged the composition of the jury in their trials. In two cases, a serving police officer sat as a juror, and in the other, a Crown Prosecution Service solicitor. Held: It appears from this decision of the House of Lords that where a prospective juror would be biased or give the appearance of bias he should stand down. It has to be borne in mind that Parliament had, by enacting the Criminal Justice Act 2003 that such persons were eligible to sit on juries, envisaging that any objection to their sitting would be the subject of judicial decision. Nevertheless, it had to be doubted whether Parliament had contemplated that employed Crown prosecutors would sit as jurors in prosecutions brought by their own authority. Appeal allowed and referred to the CofA Abdroikof - attempted murder, appeal dismissed Green - assault occasioning actual bodily harm, appeal allowed Williamson - two counts of rape, appeal allowed Comment: Considered in R v Khan (2008) CA, where the Court of Appeal declined to give guidelines, except that matters of bias should be sorted before the trial and police officers, CPS and prison personnel should be identified before the trial. In the event of likely bias the juror should be stood down. It will remain to be seen if this judgment means those persons will no longer be jurors. Aitken [Juries - jury trial not appropriate in complex libel cases] v Preston (1997) CA DD the Guardian and Granada television libelled Jonathan Aitkin (the subsequently imprisoned Tory minister) and (at C's request) Popplewell J ordered a non-jury trial. Held: The trial would involve the prolonged examination of documents, and a jury could not conveniently do that. The emphasis now was against jury trials, and a single judge would give a reasoned judgement for or against the claimant on each of the issues in dispute, whereas a jury would give only a general verdict perhaps leaving some doubt as to whether C or DD had been vindicated in relation to some issues. Order affirmed. Andrews, R v (1998) [Juries - vetting]

©VLC Publishers www.vlc.com.pk Page 16

CA D murdered her boyfriend. D alleged a fictitious motorist had killed him in a "road rage" incident. D claimed that adverse press coverage had prevented a fair trial. The trial judge refused to allow a questionnaire to be put to the jury to identify possible prejudice. Held: The questioning of potential jurors; either orally or by questionnaire, was to be avoided except in cases where they might reasonably have had a financial interest in the events on which the trial was based. The law generally assumes that jurors will be faithful to their oaths to return a true verdict in accordance with the evidence. Appeal dismissed.

Attorney General v [Juries - secrecy of deliberations] Associated Information about how the verdict was reached in a criminal trial was disclosed by Newspapers jurors to someone. This person passed the information on to a journalist. The Ltd [1994] HL journalist's article was published by a newspaper. The issue was whether it also prohibited publication of the information in a newspaper. It was submitted that Contempt of Court Act applied only to direct contact by or with the jury Held: The argument was rejected. The meaning that was to be given to the word "disclose" in section 8(1) was considered. Lord Lowry sought to identify the mischief which the Act was designed to remedy. He drew attention a sentence in the Report of the Departmental Committee on Jury Service (1965): "We agree with those of our witnesses who argued that if such disclosures were to be made, particularly to the Press, jurors would no longer feel free to express their opinions frankly when the verdict was under discussion, for fear that what they said later might be made public." Later he quoted with approval a passage from a judgment by Beldam LJ: "Section 8 is aimed at keeping the secrets of the jury room inviolate in the interests of justice. We believe that it would only be by giving it an interpretation which would emasculate Parliament's purpose that it could be held that the widespread disclosure in this case did not infringe the section."

Blythe, R v (1998) [Juries – role in cases – perverse findings] D cultivated cannabis with intent to supply it to his wife who was dying with multiple sclerosis. D feared W might commit suicide and pleaded duress of circumstances.

Held: The trial judge told the jury that the defence was not available in such a case. Nevertheless, the jury disregarded this instruction and found D not guilty.

Guilty of possession fined £100.

Broderick, R v [1970] [Juries - challenges to the array]

©VLC Publishers www.vlc.com.pk Page 17

CA D wished to be tried by an all-black jury. Held: The judge, in asking for enquiries to be made as to whether there was one black person on the panel, had 'gone quite as far as law and consideration required'.

'Bushell's Case' 1670 [Juries - jury cannot be ordered to convict against their conscience] Having failed to convict his father, Sir William Penn, for , the state then prosecuted his barrister son (and William Mead) for practicing the Quaker religion. The jury, led by Edward Bushell acquitted Both Penn and Mead of "leading a dissident form of worship". The 10 judges repeatedly directed them to convict. The jury refused and was imprisoned. The judge said, "You shall not be dismissed 'til we have a verdict that the court will accept." The jurors were locked up "without meat, drink, fire or tobacco" for two nights before being fined and imprisoned until they paid. They obtained a writ of habeas corpus and a ruling that they should not be punished for their verdict. The Chief Justice released Penn and Mead, upholding "the right of juries to give their verdict by their conscience". A memorial plaque commemorating 'Bushell's Case' is in the Old Bailey. Penn later founded Pennsylvania.

Clark v Chief [Juries – damages in defamation - s.8 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990] Constable Jury awarded C £500 damages for malicious prosecution. of Cleveland(1999) CA Held: A jury still has some discretion, and is not bound by guidelines, but if it awards too much or too little it’s award may be altered on appeal. Lord Justice Henry dissenting: It seems to me that the jury rightly took the view that Lord Woolf’s bracket was not meant to include those who set dogs on policemen, generally abuse the police, and tell the jury lies to profit from conduct which, differently charged, was criminal. In my judgment this Court should not interfere with the jury’s award Amount raised to £2000

Comerford. R v [1998] [Juries – arrangements made in ‘knobbling’ case] CA D dealt in large amounts of cocaine, and the prosecution thought an attempt might be made to "nobble" the jury. The judge ordered special protection for the jury, and allowed the jurors to be identified only by numbers and not by their names. Held: Lord Bingham LCJ: "It is highly desirable that in normal circumstances the usual procedure for empanelling a jury should be followed. But if, to thwart the nefarious designs of those suspected of seeking to nobble a jury, it is reasonably thought to be desirable to withhold jurors' names, we can see no objection to that course provided the defendant's right of challenge is preserved." Appeal dismissed.

©VLC Publishers www.vlc.com.pk Page 18

Connor (and Rollock) ^[Juries - the common law rule is that, after the verdict has been returned, and Mirza, R v. evidence as to things said by jurors during their deliberations in private is (Conjoined inadmissible] Appeals) [2004] HL Connor and Rollock committed wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm by stabbing V. Mirza committed indecent assault over a period of time against a girl aged 6 until she was 15/16. During both trials there were irregularities concerning the juries. In Connor's case a jury member sent a letter to the judge (after verdict but before sentence) saying that the deliberations included discussion that to find both guilty... "Would teach them a lesson, things in this life were not fair and sometimes innocent people would have to pay the price"... and that if they didn't find both guilty they would be deliberating for another week. In Mirza's case the jury appeared to have doubts about D using a court interpreter despite being resident in the UK or 13 years, they sent two notes to the judge to clarify their doubts (one after verdict but before sentence), D's barrister also received a letter from a juror which told him the jury thought the use of the interpreter was a ploy, and she described some of the jury deliberations Held: By a 4-1 majority the appeals were dismissed. Their Lordships affirmed the principle that not even appeal judges can inquire into the deliberations of jurors. But, a court cannot be in contempt of itself. Section 8(1) is addressed to third parties who can be punished for contempt, and not to the court which has the responsibility of ensuring that the defendant receives a fair trial. It is going too far to suggest, as the Court of Appeal appears to have done in R v Young (Stephen), that the trial court will be in contempt of itself if during the trial, having received allegations, it investigates them and discloses the result of these investigations to counsel. The court is restricted in its inquiry into what happened in the jury's deliberations, not by section 8 Contempt of Court Act but by the longstanding rule of the common law that evidence of jury deliberations after the verdict has been delivered is inadmissible. . Sec 8 merely reinforces the common law rule about jury secrecy. Lord Slynn said the principle was “essential to the operation of the jury system as we know it”. The common law rule is not incompatible with article 6(1) of the Convention. Guilty

Criminal Justice Act [Juries – jury can be directed to return verdict] 1967 s.17 Entry of verdict of not guilty by order of a judge Where a defendant arraigned on an indictment or inquisition pleads not guilty and the prosecutor proposes to offer no evidence against him, the court before which the defendant is arraigned may, if it thinks fit, order that a verdict of not guilty shall be recorded without the defendant being given in charge to a jury, and the verdict shall have the same effect as if the defendant had been tried and acquitted on the verdict

©VLC Publishers www.vlc.com.pk Page 19

of a jury.

Danvers, R v [1982] [Juries - challenge to the array] Crown Court D a West Indian objected to the jury at Nottingham Crown Court because it was entirely white. His challenge failed, even though the black population in Nottingham represented about 10 per cent of the total.

Davies, R v (1999) [Juries - acquittal for 'medicinal’ cannabis grower} Crown Court Colin Davies aged 42, from Stockport, vowed to continue growing, using and supplying cannabis after a jury at Manchester Crown Court acquitted him. It was the second time in 13 months that Mr Davies, a father of two, had mounted a successful defence. At the first trial he was cleared of possessing the drug. Mr Davies, a former joiner, broke his back in a 60ft fall from a bridge five years ago. He walks with a limp and is in constant pain. He says that conventional treatments prescribed by doctors prompted spasms and sickness, so he turned to cannabis in desperation and began cultivating the plants in his flat.

Dolby, R v (1823) [Juries - challenges] The sheriff who was responsible for summoning the jury was a subscriber to the society which was the prosecutor. The array was successfully challenged. "Upon an award of tales at Nisi Prius, it is not necessary that the tales should be selected out of persons accidentally present; they may be selected out of persons whose presence the sheriff or coroner has taken previous means to obtain."

Ellis v [Juries - court will not consider evidence of jury deliberations] Deheer [1922] Banke The verdict delivered by the foreman was not heard by the whole jury and they did s LJ not assent to it. Held: The court will not take evidence about jury deliberations, but was not precluded from granting a new trial by the fact that the objection to the verdict was not taken until after the jury had been discharged, but... Bankes LJ: "I desire to make it clear that the court will never admit evidence from jurymen of the discussion which they may have had between themselves when considering their verdict or of the reasons for their decision, whether the discussion took place in the jury room after retirement or in the jury box itself".

Fricker, R v (1999) CA [Juries - may only consider evidence presented during the trial] D was alleged to have been in possession of stolen tyres. The jury sent a note to the judge which read: "One of the jurors is a tyre specialist. The code 088 on the tyre signifies [that is the tyre produced as an exhibit] that the tyre was manufactured in the eighth week of 1998. The defendant claims to have had the tyres in his house around this period

©VLC Publishers www.vlc.com.pk Page 20

certainly very little time for the tyres to have gone through normal purchase before being acquired by the defendant. May we take this into consideration?" Just as the judge had made up his mind to allow the jury to take this matter into account the jury indicated that they had reached a verdict. The jury convicted and D appealed. Held: It was wrong that the jury should have been allowed to introduce entirely new evidence into the case, when neither party had been given the opportunity to consider it and test it, and where D in particular had not been given any opportunity to provide an explanation for it. Not guilty

Ford (Royston), R [Juries - selection - challenges- selection matter for 'Lord Chancellor and Secretary v (1989) CA of State for Justice'] D was of mixed race and preferred to be called black. D was chased and arrested by a constable, also of mixed race for unlawful use of a motor car. At the Crown Court D applied to the judge for a multiracial jury. The judge, under the misapprehension that counsel was about to use the case as a platform for racial haranguing, refused the application and, later, was intent on stopping defence counsel from asking any question which had any tinge of colour in it. Held, A judge, at common law can prevent individual jurors who were not competent from serving on the jury. This did not include the discharge of competent jurors so as to influence the overall composition of the jury. The essence of the jury system was random selection, and random selection was a matter not for the judge but for the Lord Chancellor in accordance with section 5(1) of the Juries Act 1974. A judge had no power to influence the composition of a jury. Not guilty because the judge's misunderstanding about unnecessary racial argumentation had led him into unwitting error whereby he prevented counsel from putting questions that he was lawfully entitled to put. Comment: this case is authority for preventing any meddling with the composition of jury panels, whether for reasons of race or sex.

Gregory v United [Jury deliberations must be secret - principle does not contravene Art 6 ECHR] Kingdom (1997) ECHR D, who was black, was tried for robbery. After the jury had been deliberating for about two hours, a note was passed from the jury to the judge, saying "Jury showing racial overtones. One member to be excused." The judge showed the note to the prosecution and the defence. He then recalled the jury and gave them a careful direction on the need for them to put any form of prejudice out of their minds and to decide the case, in accordance with their oath, on the evidence. Held: Appeal against conviction dismissed. Undoubtedly, there must be a general rule that the deliberations of the jury must remain secret. "The Court observes that it was not disputed that there was no evidence of actual or subjective bias on the part of one or more jurors. It was also accepted by both the

©VLC Publishers www.vlc.com.pk Page 21

applicant and the Government that it was not possible under English law for the trial judge to question the jurors about the circumstances which gave rise to the note. The Court acknowledges that the rule governing the secrecy of jury deliberations is a crucial and legitimate feature of English trial law which serves to reinforce the jury's role as the ultimate arbiter of fact and to guarantee open and frank deliberations among jurors on the evidence which they have heard." (emphasis added) Guilty Comment: This case is the authority for stating that the UK jury system does not contravene Art 6 ECHR

Gough, R v [1993] HL [Juries - bias] D had conspired with his brother to commit robbery. At the trial the brother was frequently referred to by name and a photograph of him and D was shown to the jury and a statement containing the brother's address was read to the jury. One of the jurors was a next door neighbour of the brother but she did not recognise him or connect him with the man referred to in court until he started shouting in court after the appellant had been convicted and sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment. Held: The proper test of possible bias on the part of a juror was whether there was a real danger that the D might not have had a fair trial and not whether a reasonable and fair-minded person sitting in court and knowing all the relevant facts would have had a reasonable suspicion that a fair trial of the defendant was not possible. Per curiam. In magistrates courts the test is whether a reasonable and fair-minded person sitting in court and knowing all the relevant facts would have a reasonable suspicion that a fair trial was not possible. Guilty

Harvey v [Jury deliberations must be secret - but extrinsic evidence is allowed] Hewitt (1840) Information was provided by an affidavit from the jury bailiff and persons in an Coleridge J adjoining room that the jurors had arrived at their verdict by drawing lots. Held: (1) A verdict decided by lot is a bad verdict, and the court will, where such verdict has been given, grant a new trial. (2) Though the affidavits of individual jurors are not, on grounds of public policy, receivable to impugn their own verdict, yet the affidavits of persons within hearing, are admissible to give the court that information which cannot be derived from a party implicated. Colerdige J: "No doubt . . . that we cannot take the affidavit of a juryman stating his own misconduct, or that of his brother jurymen . . . The affidavits here produced, however, are not made by the jurors themselves . . . but they are the affidavits of persons who witnessed the transaction itself, of agreeing to draw lots, and drawing lots".

John v MGN Ltd [Juries - damages for libel - guidance to juries] [1997] CA C, a well-known musician claimed damages for defamation in respect of an article in

©VLC Publishers www.vlc.com.pk Page 22

"The Sunday Mirror" which claimed that C that his habit of not swallowing food constituted a form of bulimia. The jury awarded him £75,000 by way of compensatory damages and £275,000 by way of exemplary damages. Held: Appeal allowed in part. The jury's attention could properly be drawn to such awards approved or substituted by the Court of Appeal and to the conventional compensatory scales of damages awarded in personal injury actions. Counsel and the judge could indicate a sum or bracket of award appropriate to the particular case. £25,000 & £50,000 substituted

Khan, R v (2008) CA [Juries - composition] Conjoined appeals where it was argued that there would be an appearance of bias if a police officer, CPS employee and a prison officer were served as jurors. Held: There is no reason why police and prison officers and CPS employees should be considered biased because of their occupation. Per curium: The Court of Appeal declined to give guidelines, except that matters of bias should be sorted before the trial and police officers, CPS and prison personnel should be identified before the trial. In the event of likely bias the juror should be stood down. No bias in any of the cases Comment: It will remain to be seen if this judgment means police and prison officers and CPS employees will no longer be jurors.

Kelleher, R v [2003] [Juries - judge must not direct a jury to convict] CA D entered an art gallery and decapitated a statue of Baroness Thatcher in protest at her policies which he foresaw were leading the world towards its eventual destruction. The judge directed the jury to convict because of none of the evidence was disputed and the statutory defence did not engage with D.

Held: A judge is never entitled to direct a jury to return a verdict of guilty. The evidence was overwhelming in any event, so the conviction was safe.

Kray, R v (1969) CA [Juries - challenge to the polls] D was on trial for murder. He wished to object to any jurors who had read newspaper articles published immediately after two of the accused had been convicted at an earlier trial for murder. The articles complained of had reported the earlier verdict, but had also "set out a number of facts which were not in evidence at the trial and which were discreditable of those to whom they referred". Lawton J criticised the newspapers for publishing the additional facts about the accused not disclosed in evidence at the first trial and then said: "This does, in my judgment, lead to a prima facie presumption that anybody who may have read that kind of information might find it difficult to reach a verdict in a fair- minded way. It is, however, a matter of human experience . . . first, that the public's

©VLC Publishers www.vlc.com.pk Page 23

recollection is short, and, secondly, that the drama . . . of a trial almost always has the effect of excluding from recollection that which went before. A person summoned for this case would not . . . disqualify himself merely because he had read any of the newspapers containing allegations of the kind I have referred to; but the position would be different if, as a result of reading what he had, his mind had become so clogged with prejudice that he was unable to try the case impartially." Comment: The effect of this ruling is that a juror may be challenged for cause if his mind is so prejudiced that he is unable to try the case impartially, but merely having once been informed of matters discreditable to the accused will not necessarily occasion such prejudice.

Litchfield, R v [1998] [Juries - jury's role is to decide on the facts] CA D the master of the "Maria Assumpta" which foundered off the Cornish coast and three crew members were drowned. The ship was reduced to "matchwood". The gross negligence (manslaughter) was that D followed an unsafe course and relied too heavily on his engines even though he knew the fuel was contaminated. The jury's verdict was confused and on instructions from the judge had to be restated, clearly, and also, a juror's husband had a conversation with police officers involved in the case, of a wholly innocent nature about the weather and holidays. Held: It is up to the jury to decide whether or not negligence is gross negligence. They could use common sense to decide complicated shipping matters. There was no criticism of the way the judge dealt with perceived irregularities with the jury. Simon Brown LJ: "...the jury's views ought to be regarded as well-nigh sacrosanct given that under the law it is they who decide not merely the facts but also the point at which a breach of duty becomes the offence of manslaughter. There would need to be compelling grounds indeed before it would be proper for this court to say that the jury has set the standard impermissibly high. Guilty 18 months imprisonment

Lowry, R v [2004] CA [Juries - deliberations - evidence not before the court] D unlawfully wounded V with a knife which he "found in his hand when he removed it from his pocket". The jury indicated that the knife had fallen apart during their deliberations. The judge directed the jury that the knife itself was unimportant and that the jury should not waste their time considering it. It later became apparent that the jury had reassembled the knife. D contended that the jury had plainly carried out an improper experiment on the exhibit and, since that had not occurred in open court, there had been an irregularity in the trial, which had rendered the conviction unsafe. Held: It was impossible to speculate as to whether there had been any improper reconstruction carried out by the jury. It was clear that anything not before a jury in the course of evidence was inadmissible thereafter. Further, where there was a risk that the jury might reconstruct events out of line with the evidence, they were to be

©VLC Publishers www.vlc.com.pk Page 24

warned not to do so. However, in the instant case, what was obviously relevant was the size of the knife and whether it was likely the defendant had reached into his pocket and pulled it out believing it to be money. Guilty

Mason, R v [1981] CA [Juries - challenge - jury panel having criminal convictions] D was convicted of burglary and handling stolen goods. Before the trial, the police had checked the local criminal records and, unknown to the defence; they had supplied counsel for the prosecution with the names of those called for jury service who had been convicted of criminal offences. When the jury was being empanelled, counsel asked four members of the panel to stand by for the Crown. Three of those had criminal convictions although at least one of them was not disqualified by his conviction from jury service. D was convicted of two offences of burglary and two offences of handling stolen goods. Held: Both the Crown and the defence had a right to challenge a member of the jury panel. The random selection of jurors had always been subject to the qualification that the judge and the parties were to decide which members of the jury panel were suitable to serve on a jury. The ancient right of the Crown, confirmed by sections 12 (5) and 21 (5) of the Juries Act 1974, was not subject to there being a provable valid objection until such time as the jury panel was exhausted. Therefore, there was nothing irregular in prosecuting counsel requesting a member of the panel to "stand by" because he had a conviction and, accordingly, there was no material irregularity in the course of the trial. Per curiam. Since it is a criminal offence for a person to serve on a jury knowing that he is disqualified for the police to scrutinise the list of potential jurors to see if any are disqualified is to do no more than to perform their usual function of preventing the commission of offences.

The well-established practice of supplying the prosecution with information about potential jurors' convictions is not unlawful. Guilty

McKenna (McKenna [Juries - jury to reach its own decision without threats from the judge] and Busby), R v[1960] A judge, after the jury had been considering their verdict for two hours, told them CA that if they did not return a verdict in 10 minutes they would "have to be kept all night" and not resume their deliberations until mid-day on the following day. His actual words were: “I have disorganised my travel arrangements out of consideration for you pretty considerably already. I am not going to disorganise them any further. In ten minutes I shall leave this building and if, by that time, you have not arrived at a conclusion in this case you will have to be kept all night and we will resume this matter at 11.45

©VLC Publishers www.vlc.com.pk Page 25

a.m. tomorrow. I do not know, and I am not entitled to ask—and I shall not ask—why in a case which does not involve any study of figures or documents you should require all this time to talk about the matter. May I suggest to you that you go back to your room, that you use your common sense, and do not worry yourself with legal quibbles. That is what you are brought here for: to use your common sense, bring a bit in from outside. There it is, members of the jury.” Held: The court took the view that that was a threat, especially given the possible understanding of the jury that they were going to be locked up in the jury room all night. They returned a verdict of guilty which was overturned on appeal. Cassels J: "It is a cardinal principle of English that a jury in considering their verdict shall deliberate in complete freedom, uninfluenced by any promise, unintimidated by any threat: they still stand between the Crown and the subject, and they are still one of the main defences of personal liberty." Not Guilty

Melchett, R [Juries – role in cases – perverse findings] v (2000) Norwich D, The Lord Melchett was the leader of a large group of Greenpeace supporters who Crown Court entered a field and destroyed part of a crop of genetically modified maize. Held: On a charge of criminal damage, they could plead the statutory defence (under s.5 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971) that they honestly believed the destruction was reasonable and necessary to prevent damage to other crops. Acquitted by jury

Miah (& Akhbar), R [Juries – secret deliberations] v [1997] CA DD committed violent disorder and A conspired to cause GBH and murder. Held: The court cited, apparently with approval, a statement by Darley CJ in R v Andrew Brown (1907) NSWSR an Australian case "I have come to the conclusion that the authorities are all one way, and that the Court cannot look at the affidavits of jurymen for any purpose, whether it be for the purpose of granting a new trial, or for the purpose of establishing the misconduct of a juryman". Guilty

News Group [Jury verdict – rare case of overturning by Court of Appeal] Newspapers Ltd and C, a famous goal keeper arranged to fix the results of football games, which was another v reported in The Sun newspaper so he sued for libel. The jury found in his favour and Grobbelaar (2002) HL awarded damages for libel. Held: Although the Court of Appeal was anxious not to usurp the jury function, there was jurisdiction to entertain an appeal on the ground of perversity. The court had to conclude that no reasonable jury could have been satisfied on the

©VLC Publishers www.vlc.com.pk Page 26

balance of probabilities, to a relatively high degree of probability that the verdict was not one properly and reasonably open to them. The House reversed this, but said the CofA not only could, but had a duty to set aside the jury's verdict. They pointed out this applies to civil juries, never criminal juries. They found on the facts that Grobbelaar had no reputation to save because he had arranged to 'fix' matches but the Sun had not proved he had done so. Jury's verdict reinstated and £1 derisory damages awarded. Jury's verdict reinstated.

Obellim and others, R [Juries - jury vetting - collective responsibility of jury] v [1996] CA During the trial a question from the jury caused the judge to suspect that the author of the note knew a good deal about police interviews, and might have previous convictions, and therefore potentially disqualified. The judge, without seeking the views of defence counsel, instigated enquiries into the identity of the juror in question, with a view to ascertaining whether he should have been disqualified from jury service. After the jury returned with their verdicts, they handed the judge another note, which expressed concern that a security check had been made on a juror on the basis of his having asked questions of the court. Held: Allowing the appeals. It was questionable whether the judge should have made any enquiry into the juror's eligibility, other than to check that the proper enquiries had been made before the juror was called to jury service. In any event, he should have informed defence counsel. Jury notes were from the whole of the jury, and it was not appropriate to make enquiries as to which juror had written a particular note. It was an irregularity that the jury had become aware that a security check was being made on one of their members. Not guilty

Owen, R [Juries – role in cases – perverse findings] v (1992) Maidstone D’s injured T in the back and arm by firing a sawn off shotgun at him. T had killed D’s Crown Court son by careless driving. Although T was sentenced to twelve months imprisonment D (unreported) felt this was not enough, and when T was released committed this offence D was tried for attempted murder and malicious wounding with intent. Held: The jury at Maidstone Crown Court acquitted him and some members later congratulated him on what he had done. Not guilty

Ponting, R v [1985] [Juries – role in cases – perverse findings] D a civil servant working in the Ministry of Defence saw documents showing the Government (of MT) had lied about the sinking of the ship "General Belgrano" during the Falklands War. D gave copies of these documents to an opposition MP so that the matter could be raised in Parliament D was charged under the Official Secrets Act. Held: despite the judge's clear direction that D's conduct did amount to an offence,

©VLC Publishers www.vlc.com.pk Page 27

the jury acquitted him. Not guilty

Qureshi, R v [2002] CA [Juries – secret deliberations] Three days after verdicts of guilty had been returned a member of the jury contacted the defendant’s solicitors making a number of claims concerning the conduct of the jury including allegations that some members of the jury had been racially prejudiced against the defendant and had reached a decision as to his guilt at the outset of the trial. The juror later set out her allegations in a letter to the Crown Court. On the instructions of the Court of Appeal a police officer took a statement from the juror, avoiding any inquiry as to what had taken place in the course of the jury’s deliberation. Held: The court followed Miah Kennedy LJ: “It seems to us that we must follow R v Miah unless, as a result of the Human Rights Act 1998, it can be said no longer to represent English Law. If we follow it, we cannot have regard to anything said by the juror thus far. Nor can we initiate any further inquiries because the substance of what she has said relate to what was said and done between jurors in private after they were empanelled.” “But if trial by jury is properly to be preserved, some allegations can only be investigated if made before the jury’s part in the trial process has come to an end. In our judgment, the present juror’s allegations fall into that category” “We therefore conclude that what was said in R v Miah [1997] does still represent English law. It follows that the inquiries already made have gone too far, and certainly no more inquiries can be authorised by this court.” Comment: This case postdates the implementation of the European Convention of Human Rights into English law. Also, it appears from Miah that the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) is prepared to go further than s 8 in order to protect the privacy of what is said by one juror to another. Kennedy LJ thought the prohibition applied to anything said by one juror to another from the moment the jury is empanelled. The common law rule regarding jury secrecy applied by the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) goes at least as far as s 8.

Randle & Pottle, R [Juries – role in cases – perverse findings] v (1991) Alliott J D’s assisted a famous spy George Blake escape from prison and wrote a book about the escape. They argued that their actions were justified because of the severity of Blake's sentence. Held: Acquitted by the jury.

Rantzen v Mirror [Juries - defamation trials - jury awards to be scrutinised by the Court of Appeal] Group C, a successful television presenter and the founder and chairman of the "Child Line", Newspapers[1994] CA brought a libel action against "The People" newspaper in respect of articles which tended to suggest she had protected a child abuser. The jury awarded Ms Rantzen

©VLC Publishers www.vlc.com.pk Page 28

damages of £250,000. Held: Appeal allowed. The court's power under section 8 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 to order a new trial or to substitute another award where the damages awarded by a jury were "excessive" should be consistent with article 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. An almost unlimited discretion in a jury to award damages for defamation was not satisfactory. Awards of damages by a jury should be more closely scrutinised by the Court of Appeal than hitherto. £250,000 awarded by the jury was excessive because it was not proportionate to the damage she suffered and was reduced to £110,000.

Ras Behari Lal v King- [Juries – secret deliberations - juror's disability not included] Emperor (1933) PC It was alleged that one of the jurors did not understand English, which was the language in which some of the evidence was given, the addresses of counsel were made and the judge had delivered his summing up. An inquiry was held, and it was reported that it was indeed the case that the juror had insufficient English to be able to follow what had been said. Held: Giving the judgment of the Board, disapproving R v Thomas [1933] where the Court of Criminal Appeal had refused to receive evidence that two Welsh-speaking jurors at Merioneth Quarter Sessions did not have sufficient knowledge of English to enable them to follow the proceedings, Lord Atkin said: "The question whether a juror is competent for physical or other reasons to understand the proceedings is not a question which invades the privacy of the discussions in the jury-box or in the retiring-room. It does not seek to inquire into the reasons for a verdict."

Re Tourman Osman (P [Juries – selection – deaf juror] ractice Mr O received a summons for jury service at the Central Criminal Court (The Old Note)[1995] Verney J Bailey). He was severely deaf and would have required the services of a sign language interpreter. HELD: It was for the judge to determine whether Mr Osman on account of his disability would be able to follow the whole of the evidence. It had long been held that it was an incurable irregularity for an independent person, such as an interpreter, to retire with the jury, even though he may take no part in the discussion Summons discharged.

Richardson, R v [2004] [Juries - disqualified juror does not on its own render conviction unsafe] CA D was convicted by a jury consisting of a disqualified juror - disqualified (s1 and SchI Juries Act 1974) because of a conviction for sex offences - of six counts of rape and one count of indecent assault.

©VLC Publishers www.vlc.com.pk Page 29

Held: A conviction was not unsafe due to the fact that a juror who was disqualified from acting did so act. There must either be some evidence that the verdict is unsafe. Guilty

Salt, R v [1996] CA [Juries – selection - bias] D was convicted of burglary and assault with intent to resist arrest. One of the jurors had been the court usher's son, who had been called to sit as a juror when the number of jurors available was. He had sat as a juror on five or six occasions during the previous twelve months. Held: There was no rule of law that the selection of jurors had to be at random, but every effort should be made so far as practicable to ensure that was random. As the juror was a member of the court staff he was not actually disqualified under Sch.1 of the Juries Act 1974, he could well be said to be within the spirit of that disqualification. In this case the selection of this juror exceeded anything which could reasonably be described as random. Not guilty

Schot & Barclay, R [Juries – role in cases – perverse findings] v [1997] CA DD were two jurors who were unable to follow the mass of evidence during a 17-day counterfeiting trial. DD refused to return a verdict at all, and refused to take part in deliberations with the other jurors. One had an objection to judging another person. The judge said such willful refusal amounted to contempt of court and committed DD to prison for 30 days. Held: The judge should not have asked for details of the jury's deliberations, because s.8 (1) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 applies to the court as well as everyone else. A juror may be fined for willfully refusing to find for either side, in disregard of the oath to "faithfully try the defendant and give a true verdict according to the evidence", but this requires proof of an intention to disrupt the course of justice. If the evidence is legally insufficient, the judge may direct the jury to return a verdict of "not guilty". In exceptional circumstances, he may direct a verdict of "guilty", but normally the verdict is a matter for the jury alone and the judge cannot refuse to accept it even if it seems perverse. Not Guilty

Sheffield Crown [Juries – vetting - Attorney General's guidelines to be followed] Court ex DD (police officers) were committed for trial for assault occasioning actual bodily parteBrownlow (1980 harm. ) CA An application on behalf of the officers was made to the judge to inform the defence whether any members of the jury panel had criminal convictions. The judge made the order The chief constable applied for an order of certiorari (a quashing order) to quash the judge's order.

©VLC Publishers www.vlc.com.pk Page 30

Held: Denning LJ thought that jury vetting was unconstitutional except in some circumstances. He further stated "The recent uprise of "jury vetting" gave rise to so much concern that the Attorney- General in 1975 introduced guidelines. These only permit jury vetting in very rare cases and then only with the express permission of the Attorney-General." Vetting allowed in this case.

Smith, R v [2003] CA [Juries – random selection - ] D who was a black man was convicted of grievous bodily harm by an all-white jury following a violent incident in which the victim and all the witnesses had been white. He appealed on the grounds that a fair trial in such cases requires a multi-racial jury. Held: Following the decision in Ford dismissed the appeal. Pill LJ said that fairness is achieved by the principle of random selection and a deliberative process maximising consultation between jurors with diverse backgrounds. Guilty

Sutcliffe [Juries – damages in defamation] v Pressdram [1990] D, the magazine Private Eye libelled C in an article saying that that C, wife of the CA Yorkshire Ripper, had known about her husband's activities. The jury awarded her damages of £600,000. Held: The award was manifestly excessive and ordered a new trial; the case was settled for £60,000. In future what was needed was guidance to help juries to appreciate the real value of large sums. They could be invited to "weigh" any sum they had in mind by considering the result in terms of weekly, monthly or annual income if the money were invested or to consider what they could buy with it. Comment: The editor (Ian Hislop) famously said after the first hearing "If this is justice I am a banana"

Tarrant, R v (1997) CA [Juries – random selection - intimidation] D was charged with drugs offences and the judge, suspecting that might be made to intimidate the jury, ordered that they be selected from outside the usual catchment area. Held: A judge has no power to interfere in the random selection of the jury panel. His powers are limited to ensuring that the jurors are competent, are not disqualified, and will not suffer personal hardship that might distract them from their duties.

Conviction quashed.

Thompson, R v [1962] [Juries – entitled to bring in their own verdict] CA D was found guilty by the jury. It was discovered that a majority of jurors had been in favour of acquittal until the foreman had produced a list of the defendant's previous convictions.

©VLC Publishers www.vlc.com.pk Page 31

Held: An appeal could not be based on this information. There was a long-established rule that no court could enquire into the details of the jury's deliberations. Guilty

Thompson v [Juries - guidance as to quantum of damages] Commissioner of Conjoined appeals (Hsu and Thompson) both alleging excessive use of force by the Police of the police. Metropolis [1997] CA Held: The court gave detailed guidance on the amount of damages that a jury should award, they included advice that:  Damages are only awarded as compensation; they are not intended to punish the defendant.  In a straightforward case of wrongful arrest and imprisonment the starting point is £500 for the first hour.  After the first hour the sum should be on a reducing scale so as to keep the damages proportionate with those payable in personal injury cases.  For twenty four hours £3,000.  For subsequent days the daily rate will be on a progressively reducing scale.  In the case of malicious prosecution £2,000 - £10,000.  Exemplary damages should be awarded only if, the compensation awarded by way of basic and aggravated damages is in the circumstances an inadequate punishment for the defendants.  An award of exemplary damages is in effect a windfall for the claimant and, where damages will be payable out of police funds, the sum awarded may not be available to be expended by the police in a way which would benefit the public. [This guidance would not be appropriate if the claim were to be met by insurers].  In the future the judge will include up a bracket for basic damages. Aggravated damages should not normally exceed the amount of the basic damages and it would require the most exceptional circumstances for aggravated damages to be as much as twice the basic damages.  In the case of exemplary damages the conduct must be particularly deserving of punishment to justify an award of £25,000 and £50,000 should be regarded as the absolute maximum. Thompson:. Damages to remain at £51,500. Hsu:. Damages reduced to £35,000. Comment: This case put paid to juries making awards for hurt feelings that would far exceed damages awarded by judges in personal injury cases where serious debilitating injuries had been sustained; it was universally approved.

Vaise v Delaval (1785) [Juries – entitled to bring in their own verdict] Lord Mansfield CJ D sought to set aside a jury's verdict in favour of the claimant. Two jurors claimed that the jury had resolved the case by tossing a coin. Held: The judge said he could not receive any such evidence from a juror: the verdict could not be impugned unless there was some external evidence of misconduct (e.g.

©VLC Publishers www.vlc.com.pk Page 32

from someone who had seen it through a window). The court cannot receive an affidavit from a juror as to the nature of the juror's deliberations.

The rationale that was given was that this was to protect them against self- incrimination for what Lord Mansfield described as a very high misdemeanour. So the evidence had to come from some other source.

Vickers, R v (1975) CA [Juries – entitled to bring in their own verdict] D a drug trafficker pleaded guilty when the judge ruled that the admitted facts would be conclusive evidence of D's guilt. Held: It is only in an exceptional case that the judge is able to direct a jury to convict upon agreed or admitted facts, even where any reasonable jury would be certain to convict. Guilty

Ward v Chief [Juries – role in civil trials – to determine facts] Constable of the West D, the police arrested C for a public disorder offence. His action was for false Midlands (1997) CA imprisonment and malicious prosecution. C’s claim failed. Held: The judge had been wrong to leave to the jury questions of law such as the nature of "offensive conduct" or what might constitute "reasonable suspicion". The jury's role in civil trials is to determine matters of fact. Appeal allowed, new trial ordered.

Ward v James [1965] [ – remedies - not intended to punish - quantum not affected by degree of CA fault] C’s injuries resulted in quadriplegia when the car in which he was a passenger (in Germany) was involved in an accident. Held: Lord Denning MR; "It (trial by jury) has been the bulwark of our liberties too long for any of us to seek to alter it. Whenever a man is on trial for serious crime or when in a civil case a man’s honour or integrity is at stake... then trial by jury has no equal." Up to the year 1854 all civil cases in the courts of common law were tried by juries. There was no other mode of trial available. Since 1854 trial by jury in civil cases has gradually lessened. In personal injury cases trial by jury has given way to trial by judge alone unless the case is exceptional… Because: 1. Assessability, because personal injury damages to some extent are necessarily conventional and are based on a "tariff" known to lawyers; 2. Uniformity, so that similar injuries would attract similar damages no matter in which court they were awarded; 3. Predictability, to encourage the parties to settle their claim outside the court.

Willer, R v (1986) CA [Juries – entitled to bring in their own verdict] D was charged with reckless driving. He had driven on the pavement in a shopping

©VLC Publishers www.vlc.com.pk Page 33

area to 'escape from a gang of youths'. The judge rejected his defence of , so D changed his plea to guilty and the judge proceeded directly to sentencing, only (after being reminded) asking the jury foreman to declare a guilty verdict for the record. Held: This was no mere quibble. It is of the utmost importance, to appreciate that once a person is put in charge of the jury, he can only come out of their charge by a verdict one way or the other. Watkins LJ: "We feel bound to say that it would have been for the jury to decide, if necessity could have been a defence at all in those circumstances, whether the whole incident should be regarded as one, or could properly be regarded as two separate incidents so as to enable them to say that necessity applied in one instance but not in the other. For that reason alone the course adopted by the assistance recorder was we think seriously at fault." Not guilty

Wiltshire v Barrett [Juries - comments by judges] [1966] CA C's car having been overtaken and stopped on the road by the police at 10.45 pm, defendant police constable arrested C on suspicion of being under the influence of drink and unfit to drive. The police doctor came to the conclusion that at that time plaintiff was not unfit to drive and he was released. C sued for false imprisonment following his wrongful arrest. Held: His action failed. Lord Denning said: "We all know how merciful some juries are to drivers who have been drinking. As often as not they acquit them. The jurors are inclined to say to themselves: “There but for the grace of God go I.” " Per Salmon, LJ: as a general rule, in circumstances such as these, the jury’s verdict on the fact should be taken before the judge rules on submissions of law. Comment: This action was before the breathalyser. Drink driving is now a summary only offence.

Wilson & Sproson, R [Juries – selection - bias] v (1995) CA DD were charged with robbery and held on remand, pending their trial, at a local prison where in the kitchens they came into contact with a prison officer. The prison officer’s wife was summoned to sit as juror at D’s trial. She had previously applied to be excused jury service because of her husband's work, but had been refused. Held: There was a real danger that this juror might consciously or unconsciously have been biased. Not guilty

Wilson, Kronlid, [Juries – role in cases – perverse findings] Needham, Zeltna, R Four women caused £1½m worth of damage to a Hawk fighter jet. Their defence was

©VLC Publishers www.vlc.com.pk Page 34

v(1996) that the jet was to be sold to Indonesia, where it would be used against the people fighting for independence in East Timor: their action was thus the prevention of the greater crime of genocide. Held: They were acquitted by a jury at Liverpool Crown Court.

Young, R v [1995] CA [Juries – secrecy of deliberations – does not include overnight] D committed two murders. During an overnight stay at a hotel, four of the jurors had apparently contacted one of D's alleged victims using an Ouija board, and had obtained information that lead to D's conviction. D was convicted by unanimous decisions on both counts. One of the jurors consulted a solicitor and provided a statement. Held: The statutory prohibition on inquiries into the jury's deliberations applied even to the Court of Appeal, but did not apply to events that occurred during the overnight break in their deliberations. The Court of Appeal ordered affidavits to be taken from each of the jurors and the two bailiffs who were looking after them as to what, if anything, happened at the hotel. But it was made clear that they were not to "breach" section 8 of the 1981 Act by trespassing on what happened during the jury's deliberations afterwards when they were in their retiring room Lord Taylor of Gosforth CJ: "We concluded having heard all the arguments that we were entitled to inquire into what happened at the hotel but not as to what happened thereafter in the jury room. Accordingly we ordered that affidavits should be taken from each of the 12 jurors and from the two bailiffs looking after them at the hotel. We asked the Treasury Solicitor to take charge of the inquiry in conjunction with a senior police officer of at least the rank of chief inspector. We required the affidavits to cover what if anything happened at the hotel, but not to breach section 8 of the Act of 1981 by trespassing on what happened during the jury's deliberations in their retiring room" "Having considered all the circumstances, we concluded there was a real danger that what occurred during this misguided Ouija session may have influenced some jurors and may thereby have prejudiced the appellant. For those reasons we allowed the appeal but ordered a retrial." Appeal allowed new trial ordered, guilty. The prohibition placed on the Court of Appeal was held to be wrong in Connor (and Rollock) and Mirza, R v(Conjoined Appeals) [2004] HL

 Class Activity . Explanation of the role, selection and qualification of jury members. . Discussion of the effectiveness of the jury and examination of alternative methods of of decision making in courts. . Debate on whether it is appropriate to use laymen in the English Legal System.

©VLC Publishers www.vlc.com.pk Page 35

 Past paper questions . Q1. Juries are anti-democratic, irrational and haphazard. To what extend do you think that this is an accurate description of the selection and the role of jury? [MAY / JUNE 2004] . Q2. It has been said that a jury should be independent, impartial and representative. How far does the jury meet these ideals in the UK? [October/November 2005] . Q3. ‘We believe in this country, in our criminal law, that the best tribunal to get at the truth of the facts and decide them is a jury of twelve people, called by chance from their various and different occupations and homes into the jury-box to hear the evidence and, subject to being assisted by counsel and directed by the court, to come to a conclusion. - Finnemore J. in R v Christie (1953) With reference to the above quotation; evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the jury system in criminal cases. [May/June 2010] . Q4. ‘There are many drawbacks to jury service. The time has long come for it to be abolished and replaced with something more efficient’. Discuss the extent to which you agree with this statement. [October/June 2010] . Q5. In a recent case, the jury forewoman explained to the judge that she and her fellow jurors had played games of Sudoku throughout the proceedings because it was difficult to maintain attention during the lengthy evidence. To what extent does this highlight the inappropriateness of the role of the jury in complex proceedings? Can you offer any positive reasons for maintaining the present system of juries in the civil and criminal courts? [May/June 2011] . Q6. Adela is charged with the of a pair of binoculars valued at £75. Protesting her innocence, she tells her solicitor that she wishes to be tried by a jury of her peers. Explain the procedures that will now take place and indicate the strengths and weaknesses of trial by jury. [October/November 2012]

©VLC Publishers www.vlc.com.pk Page 36