24/7 Customer support here

   However it can also be argued that there are many disadvantages to trial by jury. It is argued that many defendants choose to have trial by jury to delay to the system. By delaying the process this may put pressure on the Crown Prosecution Service to reduce the charge in exchange for the defendant pleading guilty. Secondly the prosecution witness may fail to attend the trial or at least weaken their recollections if they do not attend, so making acquittal more likely. Thirdly if a defendant is being held on remand, they are allowed additional privileges not given to convicted prisoners. Therefore time spent on remand is deducted from any eventual prison sentence, which means that putting off the trial for as long as possible will maximize the amount of the sentence that can be spent under the more better conditions. This can waste a great deal of time and money. Since many defendants who manipulate the system in this way end up pleading guilty at the last minute. So, that the time preparing the prosecution cases is wasted. R, v Hollington and Emmens (1986). The defendant pleaded not guilty to an offence, the courts generally impose a lesser sentence than they otherwise would, but in this case, the Court of Appeal stated that a defendant charged with an either way offence who opts for a crown court trial in attempt to benefit by the delay cannot expect to receive the same reduction in a magistrates court.

   On the whole however I do not believe that the disadvantages outlined above are compelling enough or relevant enough in considering protection against injustice for the Defendant.

   I believe that more pertinently it is relevant in answering this question to look at systems such as the French judicial system, i.e.: ‘inquisitorial procedures’ this is defined as “a procedure that inquires into the facts and circumstances and law with a view to reaching the truth. The active role of the judge is perhaps the single most distinguishing feature. It is indeed arguable that judicial systems used in France, Germany and Scandinavia protect the Defendant against injustice and yet do not have a jury system in place. This is because they also uphold the rights as set out in the European Convention of Human Rights which I will turn to next.

   I will now consider other important protections against injustice to a Defendant, namely those enshrined in the European Convention of Human Rights. The Human Rights Act (HRA) 1998 incorporates the rights set out in the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law. The Act consists of a series of provisions describing how describing how the Convention is incorporated into UK law, followed by a Schedule setting out the articles which comprise the Convention rights incorporated. The Act came into force on 2 October 2000. In my opinion Articles 5, 6 and 7 are all fundamental and important protections against injustice.

Article 5 states as follows:
1. ‘Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person.
No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:
o (a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court;
o (b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person for non-compliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law;
o (c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority of reasonable suspicion of having committed and offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so;
o (d) the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority;
o (e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts, or vagrants;
o (f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorized entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition.
2. Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and the charge against him.
3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1(c) of this article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.
4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.
5. Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.
Article 5 is therefore a fundamental and important protection against a Defendant’s injustice as it states that everyone shall have the right to liberty except in certain limited circumstances set out in the article, such as normal criminal or legal processes which must also be clearly provided for the law of the country concerned. The main purpose of Article 5 is to protect people from arbitrary detention. Article 5 also provides certain procedural safeguards for those people who are lawfully detained, such as the right to be informed of the reason for their arrest and any charge against them, the overseeing of detention by a court, a trial within a reasonable time and a right to compensation for unlawful detention. Article 6 protects the Defendant’s rights to a fair trial and therefore injustice and states as follows: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgement shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.
Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

   Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:
a) to be informed promptly in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of accusation against him;
b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence;
c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free where the interests of justice so require;
d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;
e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court. “

   Article 7 ECHR protects a Defendant’s rights as follows: ‘ 1.No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed when the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed.

   This article shall not prejudice the trial and punishment of any person for any act of omission which, at the time when it was committed, was criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations2..

   In conclusion I would say on balance that the Jury system in the United Kingdom plays an important part in protecting the Defendant against injustice but I do believe that there are more important protections in place. I do believe that we should maintain our jury system for the reasons argued above and believe that on balance the arguments in favour of maintaining are judicial system would outweigh those against. However, I do not believe that jury trial is the most important protection against injustice as I believe that these are outlined in Articles 5, 6 and 7 of the European Convention of Human Rights. Furthermore, I concede that there are judicial systems in place that work effectively without a jury system such as those that are in place in some of European countries as they also uphold these Articles.

Bibliography:
  • Collins, Gem, English Dictionary, 8th edition, (1992, Harper Collins Publishers, Great Britain)
  • Elliott, C., & Quinn, F., “English Legal System”1st ed, (1996, Person, London)
  • Makins, M (1991) English dictionary 8th ed (Great Britain: Harper Collins publisher)
  • Michael, A and Thompson, B (2002) Case and Materials on Constitutional and Administrative Law 7th ed (United States: Oxford university press inc)
 • Stewart, W.J (2001)Law Dictionary 2nd ed (Great Britain: Harper Collins publishers)
 • Slapper.G.,Kelly. D., the English Legal System, 6th edition, (2003,Cavendish Publishing Limited)
 • Walker’s, W., “English Legal System” 4th ed(2002, Longman, Essex.)

1  2

BACK TO LAW