24/7 Customer support here

Trial Jury: guarantee against injustice?

   A defendant is a person accused of a wrong doing of a criminal or civil action. Moreover the word injustice has been an issue for many centuries. As injustice is a form of unfair treatment or action against any one person, (Collins English Dictionary). Injustice can be said to be a “violation of another’s right or of what is right; lack of justice… A specific unjust act; a wrong”[1]

   The word ‘trial’ originates from the Anglo-French, from ‘trier’, ‘to try’. (www.gurunet.com). The English Dictionary defines trial as the, “investigation of a case before a judge” The more serious criminal cases are tried on the basis of a document called the indictment - the defendant is indicted on criminal charges specified in the indictment by the prosecutor. In most cases, the prosecution is on behalf of the Crown (the State) and is handled by an official agency called the Crown Prosecution Service, which takes the case over from the police who have already investigated most of the evidence. The first stage will be to decide whether there is a case to answer - what is called a prima facie case. This process, called committal, will be dealt with by a magistrate on the basis of evidence disclosed in papers provided by the prosecutor. If the case proceeds, it is heard in the Crown Court (there is only one Crown Court but it has about 70 centres around the jurisdiction). The trial is before a judge and jury. The judge presides over the trial process by attempting to ensure clarity and fairness. The judge must also consider and decide on legal issues (such as whether a piece of evidence is admissible - should be put before the jury) and also instruct the jury as to the correct view of the law relevant to the case. The jury decides the facts - whose story is more believable - and applies the law to those facts. So, it is the jury not the judge which reaches a verdict on the guilt or innocence of the defendant. In criminal cases, the prosecution has the burden of proof - it must prove guilt, rather than the defendant having to prove innocence. The standard (= level) of proof is heavy - guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

   In less serious criminal cases the case is sent for summary trial in one of over 400 magistrates’ courts. A summary trial means there is no committal and no jury. The trial is before a bench of magistrates. In most cases, there are three magistrates who are "lay" persons - in other words, they are not professional judges nor are they lawyers, but, like the jury, they are persons from the local community. However, there is now an increasing number of "stipendiary" magistrates - paid magistrates who are qualified lawyers. Stipendiary magistrates are, for historical reasons, most common in London and in other large cities. See The Place Of The Magistrates Court In The English Judicial System, and also The English Magistrate which gives a description of the nature and role of the English Magistracy (See for example, the web site of Trafford Metropolitan Magistrates Court and its Code of Practice).

   Historically the jury system was imported to Britain after the Norman Conquest though its early functions were very different to the one that it fulfils today. The first jurors acted as witnesses and were local people that provided information about local matters, and were predominantly used for administrative business. Later in the course of the 17th century under Henry 11 the jury began to have a more important role than they did before. As they moved from reporting on events that they were aware of to deliberating on evidence produced by the parties involved in a dispute.

   Subsequently it became accepted that the juror should know as little as possible about the facts of the case before the trial and this is the case today. A major turn around in the history of the jury was in Bushell’s Case (1670). This case established that the jury were the, ‘sole judges of fact, with the right to give a verdict according to their conscience, and could not be penalized for taking a view of the facts opposed to that of the judge’. This case was a benefit to the legal system, as previously judges would try to intimidate or even bully juries into convicting a defendant, particularly where the crime had political implications. Therefore the importance of the jury system is that it could acquit a defendant, even when the law demanded a guilty verdict and it showed defendants that the trial by jury was not only a protection against injustice but also a loophole whereby real criminals could escape from.

   The main role of the jury was to balance up the evidence and decide what actually happened. The jury is a body of twelve ordinary (or lay), men or women who are chosen to make a decisions of the truth of factual evidence in legal proceedings, on application of the law to the facts (http:www.hmcc.org.uk/cc/jury_service.htm) . 

   Juries have been effective into the English legal system, in order to give them empowerment to judge any facts in a case that is a trial by a jury. This therefore gives the legal system undisputed credibility. Juries are mainly put into practice in criminal cases. In criminal cases juries only act in a minority of cases and only decide cases heard in the Crown court. However even the cases held in the crown court a high proportion of these the defendants would plead guilty which would mean that there was no need for a jury. Even in cases, where, the judge directs the jury that the law demands that they acquit the defendant it effectively shows that the jury can make no decision here either. This shows, ‘that juries only actually decide only around 1 percent of criminal cases.

   This is why defendants who do not come from this part of society may prefer to be judged by a jury, that is more likely to include members of his or her own race and class. As the Runnymede Trust found that black defendants charged with either way offence were more likely to opt for trial jury than white defendants. This does not necessarily mean that the magistrates are biased or prejudice to anybody outside their race and class but it shows that if defendants believe this to be the case then the trust in the legal system will be significantly reduced. More importantly it will be even more reduced if the option to choose a particular type of trial is taken away. For these reasons some defendants may opt for the trial by jury as they are seen as a, ‘vital protection against oppressive or politically motivated prosecutions, and as a kind of safety valve for those cases where the laws demands a guilty verdict’ An examples of this is the R v Kronlid and others (1996).

   The defendants were three women that had broken into a British aerospace factory and caused damage costing over 105 million to a fighter plane. The women admitted their wrongdoing and had left a video explaining their actions in the plane …….. However they claimed that under s.3, which is the criminal law, act that provides that it is lawful to commit a crime in order to prevent another crime being committed, and this could involve using such force in certain circumstances. The defendants pointed out that the plane was due to be sold to the Government of Indonesia, which had been involved in oppressive activities against the population of East Timor. They further explained that Amnesty International had estimated that the Indonesians had killed at least a third of the population of East Timor and that the jet was likely to be used in a genocide attack on the survivors. They argued that genocide was a crime therefore their criminal damage was done in order to prevent a crime. Despite the prosecutions given evidence that the Indonesian government had given assurances that the plane would not be used the jury found them not guilty.

   Now because there was a lot of media and political controversy surrounding this trial many believed that the women would be found guilty as they did commit the crime. However they were not and this had a huge implication on the British government position on the issue. This showed that there was an oppressive prosecution towards the defendants and had they had been found guilty it would have been better for the political circles involved. This shows that when law demands a guilty verdict they can acquit. Thomas Jefferson summarises the role that a jury can play in 1789 commenting as follows: ‘ I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which government can be held to the principles of its constitution’

1  2

BACK TO LAW