A positive verdict on juries
As a BVC student on an advocacy training weekend, I recall Nigel Pascoe’s dramatisation of the case of the Quakers William Penn and William Mead, charged with riot for carrying out a prayer meeting in Grace Church Street. Ordered by the judge to convict the pair, the jury courageously returned verdicts of not guilty, as the men had done nothing wrong. For their pains the jury were imprisoned in contempt of court.
Critics of the jury system often recite the argument that trial by jury equates to trial by the prejudiced and ignorant, suggesting that juries are all to often made up of the long-term unemployed because anyone clever enough can get out of jury service. They question whether jurors can be trusted to go beyond the defendant’s appearance and see through the obfuscation, confusion and clever arguments advanced by lawyers, to determine the truth.
Research published this week by the Ministry of Justice does seem to vindicate the jury system. The report, Are Juries Fair, compiled by Cheryl Thomas of the University of London, concluded that juries are fair and do not discriminate on racial grounds, convicting in around 60% of cases.
The research did show that many jurors did not fully understand their responsibilities or the legal directions given by the judge before they retire. The blame for this cannot be attributed to the juror system or the stupidity of jurors, but surely indicates that judges should try to be clearer in their directions.
Even if the report does not convince doubters of the efficacy of the jury system, the question for them is, with what would they replace it? The alternative to juries – judge only trials – such as the one currently going on at the Royal Court of Justice, is hardly a desirable alternative.
Would you rather trust your fate to one person, whose wages and pension are paid by the government, or 12 disinterested people doing their civic duty?
Comments
Justice done and seen to be done
It's good to hear that the research supports jury trials. Let's hope that this government [who clearly take the view that if anything isn't working 100%, the government must immediately step in, spend millions of taxpayers money and as often as not make the situation worse] will leave it well alone. It may not be perfect but it has been working pretty well now for centuries. Perhaps most important however is not just that justice is done, but that justice is seen to be done. Trial by jury does exactly that. At a time when the British public is sadly losing faith in both government and institutions, that's really important..
Family Law has no jury, only
Family Law has no jury, only recently opened to limited scrutiny yet the country accepts justice is done, Children are the most precious commodity a country has, Why are they treat so shodily?
Would you rather trust your
Would you rather trust your fate to one person, whose wages and pension are paid by the government, or 12 disinterested people doing their civic duty Lanterns?
---
No, I don't wan't trust my fate to them.