Trial by Jury Is the Lamp That Shows That Freedom Lives - Assignment Example

?“TRIAL BY JURY…IS THE LAMP that shows that freedom lives” One of the most fundamental rights of a person accused of a criminal offence is the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty by a jury. The right to a trial by jury is a cherished right in this jurisdiction as it was decreed that a freeman shall not be imprisoned unless by the judgement of his peers1 however this deeply enshrined tradition of “being tried by a jury of one’s peers” is under attack because it is slow and it entails more expense than a trial before the magistrates’ courts. According to Louise Casey2, an annual savings of ?30-million may be realized if lesser offences are heard before magistrates’ courts rather than a trial by jury. And, another flaw being hurled against juries is the perception that it is the weakest link in the judicial system for handing verdicts which are unjust, unfair and inequitable. The task of this paper is to determine whether “the lamp that shows that freedom lives” has lost its glow or is there still a need for jury service? The answers to the questions are in the affirmative. The prevailing government policy is to limit access to trial by jury to the most serious offences or indictable offences such as murder and rape and persons accused of summary offences such as driving offences, drunkenness or disorderly behaviour, common assault and criminal damage where the damage cost is less than ?50003 shall not be entitled to a trial by jury. Cases of this nature shall fall within the jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court. On the other hand, the Magistrates or Crown Court has concurrent jurisdiction over offenses such as theft, burglary and assault resulting in actual bodily harm, these are otherwise known as the “tri-able either way” offences. However, before a case is sent to the Crown Court, the Magistrates Court shall first determine if the case is grave enough to warrant an indictment before the Crown. Jury participation is seen to have been gradually dissipated or eroded. Before 1927, a coroner’s inquests is participated by juries to determine if there is sufficient ground to indict the person accused of the crime of killing to stand trial-either for murder or manslaughter. However, jury participation in 1927 was to limited inquest cases and under the Coroners Act 19884, coroner’s jury shall be necessary only when there is reason to suspect a death occurred in prison; in police custody or as a result of police causing injury; which is reportable under separate legislation to a government department or officer or to the Health & Safety Executive; occurring in circumstances prejudicial to public health or safety; and in any other case where it appears to him that there is reason to do so. Under the guise of administration of law and speedy disposition of cases, trial by jury is restricted in minor offences and this is advocated to favour the victims of more serious or heinous crimes. Jury participation was dispensed with under the proposed Counter-Terrorism Bill 2008 where the Home Office Secretary is empowered to create special inquests for reasons of national security or when public interest requires it. Although this provision was removed from the Counter-Terrorism Bill, it was included in the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. Jury trial has likewise been abolished in civil cases except for cases involving libel and false imprisonment as well as in the Domestic Violence Crime and Victims Act 2004.5 The first argument proffered by the government that trial by jury is a slow process is indeed valid considering that it involves jury selection, interpretation of the law and summation of evidence by the judge and ending with the deliberation of the jury to either acquit or convict however expediency should not sacrifice the right of the accused to be tried by his peers summoned to make an fair and impartial ruling. This is a substantial right which cannot be withdrawn at will by the government because this guarantees that the accused’s constitutional and human rights are protected. Again, the argument that trial by jury is an expensive process is accurate however the right to life and liberty of a person accused of an offense is more paramount and cannot be equated with money or wealth. The high cost should not curtail the right of an accused to jury trial since a lone sitting judge is more prone to handing a biased or prejudiced judgment than a pool of jurors untainted with pre-conceived beliefs. Indeed, the right to jury trial is part of the substantive and procedural right of an accused thus it cannot be bargained away by reason of expediency or high expenditure. This right must be protected otherwise the “lamp that shows that freedoms lives” would be negated. So also, jury service is an important pillar of the justice system thus it is necessary for ordinary men and women to participate in jury trials—they may not be learned in the nuances of the law or other fields which may be discussed during the trial but they are equipped with the wealth of their experience and discernment which are necessary tools to come up with fair and just verdict. The independence and neutrality of juries cannot be assailed since there are 12 people of different backgrounds who are summoned to rule on the innocence or guilt of a person. The juries’ good sense of what is right and wrong and their strong moral beliefs would prevent the conviction of an innocent person. Unlike in a single or lone sitting judge, bias and prejudice can be easily claimed thus any verdict or judgement issued is put under a cloud of suspicion—whether it is an acquittal or conviction. On the other hand, it is suggested that juries have given erroneous verdicts but nevertheless they cannot be totally blamed for any miscarriage of justice. It cannot be denied that juries rely on facts and evidence presented before it by the prosecution and defence—they evaluate these matters after hearing and if the positions of both parties were presented clearly then there is no doubt that the verdict would be just and fair. However, if the prosecution or the defence misled the juries, misrepresented facts or withheld information during the trial then any unfair or unjust verdict cannot be attributed to the juries. This is anchored on the fact that if the same facts and circumstances are presented before a judge or magistrate, the likelihood that a different verdict would be issued is highly improbable. A concrete example of prosecutorial misrepresentation is the case of a British solicitor6 who was charged and convicted for murdering her two sons. The controversy arose over the expert testimony of the paediatrician who claimed that the possibility of one sudden infant death in a family is a tragedy and two is suspicious thus Clark was convicted based on statistical evidence adduced claiming that two children born to riches and suffering from cot death was 1 in 73 million. It was later discovered that the prosecution had prior knowledge of a pathology report suggesting that her second son may have died from natural causes but was not disclosed to the defence. Clark’s conviction on first appeal was affirmed on ground that the error in the statistical evidence during the trial did not render the convictions unsafe. On the second appeal, however, the conviction was overturned since the statistical evidence relied upon during the trial was seriously flawed. Another prominent case involved Mrs. Angela Cannings,7 who was convicted by the jury of murdering her children. The Court overturned her conviction because it has “received significant and persuasive fresh evidence, which was not before the jury, some of it the result of further research”8 that the extreme rarity of three separate infant deaths in the same family may be genetic which serves to explain the tragic events. In the above-cited cases, Clark and Cannings were convicted by jury but the same guilty verdict would have been carried out by the judge since the same evidence would have been evaluated to determine their innocence or guilt. Although it can be argued that jury services should be dispensed with since jurors are easily swayed by barristers when their respective cases are presented due to lack of experience and knowledge in law they fail to issue a just decree. Another argument which affects the credibility of the jurors is that not all persons called to serve are equipped with good sense and intellect thus failing to appreciate the facts that would either convict or acquit. Thus a single or lone sitting judge may be in a better position to understand the facts and accordingly apply the law and evidence in its verdict. The jury system is not a perfect system biases and influences still exist among jurors. Even though systems are in place to prevent jurors with strong biases or influences to be part of certain cases that may prejudice either party nobody can claim that it is a perfect system. Juror’s perceptions and predispositions are formed by their current environment and how they grew up. How these predispositions manifests even if they are buried deep in the potential jurors’ past has been the subject of several psychological papers. The same can be said on how the biases translates and surfaces into the jurors decisions making processes. There are limitations on how the counsel from each side can investigate the details of each of the potential jurors that will not be considered as an invasion of the juror’s privacy. However, considering the possible impact the juror’s past with regards to his predisposition may have on the case the issue of whose rights will have to be protected will remain an issue. The juror’s right to privacy and the accused rights’ to due process are contentious issue that have to be settled. The preponderated argument can also be the same for judges. However, judges’ rulings are public documents that can be reviewed to determine the judge’s predispositions. In these cases, to maintain fairness counsels for the affected side have remedial processes that are available for it. These arguments can go on however the primary argument that needs to be resolved is the constitutionality of the jury system. The jury system allows for ordinary people to get involved in the legal system. To be judged by your peer is a right afforded to the accused to ensure that the supposed criminal act is acceptable to society or not. After all it is society the accused have offended therefore it is society or their representative thereof should be the one to find the accused guilty or not. The primary concept of the jury system is to take into consideration the point of view of society in every case. The government cannot ignore society in the disposition of cases since their active participation similarly gives credence to the judicial process. If the community is excluded from the process, any verdict is viewed with suspicion. It cannot be denied that the active participation of the community is a clear manifestation that the system works—for them to accept the verdict. Should trial by jury continue to vanish from the judicial process, the life and liberty of the people is at stake—it is an assault to democracy which must be protected. Technical rules should not hinder the right of accused to jury trial and the right to choose must remain vested upon the accused. The common law tradition that juries decide the fate of the accused based on the facts presented since it is the community itself that is given the power to determine guilt or innocence of the person who offended them. Jury service is necessary to maintain the most impartial means to determine the guilt or innocence of a person. Thus continues to “light the lamp that shows liberty” and since the system is not broken, there is no need for fixing. Bibliography Case Law R v Cannings. [2004] EWCA Crim 01. 19 January 2004. accessed 20 January 2012 R v Clark. [2000] EWCA Crim 54 (2nd October, 2000) accessed 20 January 2012 R v Clark. [2003] EWCA Crim 1020. 11 April 2003. accessed 20 January 2012 Primary Legislation United Kingdom. Criminal Justice Act 2003. 2003 c. 44. accessed 20 January 2012. United Kingdom. Criminal Justice Act 2003. 2003 c. 44. < http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/43> accessed 20 January 2012. United Kingdom. Coroners and Justice Act 2009. 2009 c. 25. < http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/25/contents> accessed 20 January 2012. United Kingdom. Coroners Act 1988. 1988 c. 13. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/13/contents accessed 20 January 2012. United Kingdom. Counter-Terrorism Act 2008. 2008 c. 28. accessed 20 January 2012. United Kingdom. The Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 (Commencement No. 2) Order 2009. 2009 No. 58 (C. 6). < http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2009/58/contents/made> accessed 20 January 2012. United Kingdom. Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004. 2004 c. 28. < http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/28/contents> accessed 20 January 2012. Online Articles Fn3- BBC. Cut jury trials, says victims' champion Louise Casey. 3 November 2010. < http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11680382> accessed 20 January 2012. Fn4- BBC. Jury system in the dock. 13 January 2000. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/601690.stm accessed 20 January 2012. Read More