The jury service in the UK

Trial by jury is an ancient and important feature of English justice. Although it has declined in civil cases (except for libel and fraud), it is the main element in criminal trials in the Crown Court. Jury membership was once linked to the ownership of property, which resulted in male and middle-class dominance. But now most categories of British residents are obliged to undertake jury service when summoned. Nowadays, there are both defenders and opponents of the jury system.

First, there is the issue of the jury’s competence. Opponents argue that the judge, by reason of his training, experience and intelligence, is better equipped to understand law and facts and pass a fair judgment than lay persons without legal training and experience. Supporters, in contrast, maintain that the jury’s inexperience in legal matters in fact secures a fresh perception of each case, avoiding judicial stereotypes.

Second, there is a debate about the jury’s interpretation of the law. Critics complain that juries often refuse to follow the law because they do not understand or like it. However, some studies have shown that judges would have reached the same decision without a jury in four-fifths of all verdicts.

And finally, defenders of the jury system believe that the jury provides an important civic experience encouraging people ‘to give to the community’. They also believe that the jury guarantees the integrity of the whole system of justice since twelve people are more difficult to bribe than one.

Normally juries consist of twelve members (eight in the county court). They are selected at random from electoral rolls to achieve a fair cross section of the community. Jurors must be between the ages of 18 and 70, ordinarily resident in the UK for five years since the age of 13. They are not paid but given expenses while they are on jury service, which is usually for about two weeks but may last much longer, especially in civil trials. In cases involving national security and in terrorist cases, checks are made on prospective jurors on police and Special Branch records (jury vetting).

Some groups of people are ineligible for jury service, such as mentally ill persons, and some are disqualified, such as persons who have been imprisoned for more than three months within the preceding ten years. A sentence of five years’ imprisonment or more disqualifies a person for life. For the rest of society jury service is compulsory.

The law permits trial counsel to challenge prospective jurors for cause (excuse from service by giving reasons). Unlike the prosecution, which has unlimited rights of challenge, the defense’s right is limited to two challenges. Both counsels ask candidates questions like ‘Have you read or heard anything about the case in the media?’ — to exclude any undue prejudice. If any bias surfaces as a result of questioning, the person is excused from the panel. If a juror happens to know the defendant or a witness, this too may be a cause for excusal. In Scotland the prosecution or defence may challenge up to three jurors without reason. In Northern Ireland each defendant has the right to challenge up to 12 potential jurors without giving a reason.

The job of the jury is to decide questions of fact and the judge’s responsibility is to guide them on questions of law. When instructing the jury at the end of the trial, the judge will summarize the evidence and discuss its weight, as well as explain what law they should apply in reaching the verdict. In criminal cases, the jury is restricted to deciding issues of guilt, while punishment is generally left to the judge. In Scotland the jury’s verdict may be ‘guilty’, ‘not guilty’ or ‘not proven’. If the jury acquits the defendant, the prosecution has no right of appeal and the defendant cannot be tried again for the same offence.

The jury must strive for unanimity but if it’s impossible the judge may accept the following majorities: 11-1, 10-2, 10-1, 9-1. When the required number of jurors cannot agree on a verdict, the judge declares a mistrial, which means that the case must be tried anew. Once juries have been sent out to consider their verdicts, they no longer have to stay late at court until they have finished or be taken to hotels. The judge may now permit them to separate — go home and come back to court to carry on their work the next day.

A jury is independent of the judiciary. Any attempt to interfere with a jury is a criminal offence. Jurors deliberate in secrecy, reach a decision by a vote and present their verdict without giving reasons. Not only are jurors forbidden to discuss the case with outsiders during the trial, they are not allowed to comment on the case or their deliberations after the trial. If they do, they will be facing a prison sentence for contempt of court.