|
Perceived limits on the use of
juries |
|
Juries
and the jury system in England and Wales are fair, unbiased and balanced |
Research shows in particular that the jury system does not discriminate against
people from black and minority ethnic (BME) backgrounds.
A four-year research study, published in June 2007 by the Ministry of Justice,
shows clearly:
-
No
differences between white and black and minority ethnic (BME) people in responding
positively to being summoned for jury service
-
Black
and minority ethnic groups are not significantly under-represented among those
summoned for jury service or among those serving as jurors
-
Racially-mixed juries' verdicts do not discriminate against defendants based
on their ethnicity
This unprecedented study is highly encouraging. It strongly suggests that juries
and the jury system are working, and working well.
The study, Diversity and Fairness in the Jury System, carried out for the
Ministry of Justice by the University of Birmingham, uses case simulation with
real jurors, as well as examining the verdicts of actual juries, to try to
understand jury decision-making.
The research was commissioned in June 2002 in response to the Macpherson Report
published in 1999, which followed an inquiry into the Metropolitan police's
investigation of the murder of a black teenager, Stephen Lawrence.
Report
here |
|
Complex fraud trials |
Home Office has proposed removing juries from such cases and substituting some other form of trial.
This provision had to be
dropped in order to secure the passage of the Criminal Justice Bill through the
Lords.
|
|
Serious Fraud Office |
In spite of some high-profile failures such as the
Maxwell trial the SFO secures convictions against 65 per cent of those it prosecutes and at least one conviction in over 80 per cent of cases.
|
|
Non
jury trials under Sec43 Criminal Justice Act 2003 |
Lord
Goldsmith, the Attorney General announced that juries might no longer be used
from 1st January 2006 in serious or complicated fraud cases. A judge would sit
alone in probably 15 and 20 such cases a year where the judge considers that the
trial is too "burdensome" for a jury. Such a trial would also need the approval
of the Lord Chief Justice.
The Criminal Justice Act 2003 s43 permits non-jury fraud trials but the
government agreed it would not be implemented without further approval from both
Houses, it is expected that there will significant opposition. |
|
Jury
trial in America |
The
Criminal Justice Act requires the Attorney General to engage in consultation
before abolishing juries.
Thirty-five "experts" were summoned for a half-day seminar, these included
Professor Michael Zander who says that the seminar lacked "any sense of
direction" and ignored America's experience.
Lord
Falconer does not know why American juries convicted Bernie Ebbers, Martha
Stewart, John Rigas, Dennis Kozlowski and some Enron directors accused of frauds
worth hundreds of billions of dollars in recent months, whereas in the UK juries
seem not to convict.
Many
academics believe the fault lies in the prosecution approach to the trials not
the juries. |
|
More
trust should be placed in the common sense of juries
The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers
October 2007 |
In the
Kalisher lecture to the Criminal Bar Association Lord Phillips said that some
directions given to juries by judges were aimed at protecting themselves against
an appeal on grounds of misdirection, other directions were simply too long.
He said
that in 2000 a landmark report on the criminal justice system, by Sir Robin
Auld, raised the idea that juries be given a summary of the case, questions they
had to decide and the nature of the charges accompanied with a short narrative
of agreed facts and a list of contested facts.
At the
end, the judge would no longer direct the jury on the law or sum up the
evidence.
“These proposals were made seven years ago. They have not been taken up. The
time may come when they receive future consideration. We must now place more
trust in the jury."
|
