Criminal Justice System - Essay Example

Modern day jury comprises of 12 members selected randomly and sits for indictable offences in the Crown Court only if the defendant pleads “not guilty” does a full trial by jury commence. After the summing up of the case the judge clarifies and highlights relevant points of law and summarizes the evidence and events impartially to help the jury. The verdict has to be unanimous but concerns over jury ‘nobbling’ led to accepting 11:1 or 10:2 verdicts as representing legal majority . The problem arises when weighing the pros and the adequacy of the checks placed to vet the cons of jury trial procedure in the interest of justice and whether Article 6 (right to fair trial) is being complied with.

To reach any conclusion to that effect the jury selection procedure should be considered and it should be appreciated that only the gravest of offences reach the Crown Court filtered by the Crown Prosecution Service for the strength of the case and the Magistrate’s Court. . e what may be complex and technical points is an absurd one but has been supported by eminent judges such as Lord Devlin as a bastion of liberty against the state and a fundamental of a democratic society. As a jury is not expected to give reasons for their verdict or follow precedent of past cases, the verdict is based on “subjective fairness” referred to as jury equity sometimes.

Ponting’s Case3 being one such illustration of its importance, where the jury refused to convict a civil servant who had violated s.2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 claiming his actions had been in the public interest. The case prompted the Government to reconsider and amend the law in s.2. No matter the trial by jury instills public confidence in the system, boasts about impartiality, transparency of the system of justice and that the jury pool has not been ‘case-hardened’ like the judges, the important question remains is it a ‘fair’ trial?

The pros are there at a huge cost of keeping them so, the argument of impartiality of the jury is justified by the mere presumption that random selection of jurors with no direct interest in the case “should” cancel out any bias and since it is an offence under s.8 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 to obtain or solicit information regarding discussions in the jury room there is no way of knowing if the person whose freedom is being decided has been sacrificed on racial bias as in the case of Sanders v UK4, misunderstanding of the trial proceedings as in R v Mirza5 or mere presumption of guilt and pressure of co-jurors for time delay as in R v Connor and Rollock6.

In all these cases one of the jurors had written to the judge explaining their concern at the co-juror’s behavior at the expense of fairness. Where the House of Lords held