The Reform of the Prohibition of Research into Jury Deliberations - Case Study Example

Discussion on the Reform of the Prohibition of Research into Jury Deliberations. Introduction: For several years now, there had been many court casesof which the jury trial was questioned, in the United Kingdom, United States, and elsewhere. Shadows of doubt, shady and apparent, were presented against these deliberations, decisions, and votes, but it is still used and trusted by the public in determining guilt of persons charged with criminal offence. Court cases have also been filed with regards to jury deliberations questioning it whether acts or acts of omission were constitutional, adhering to human rights law, right of information, Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, among other things. Likewise, popular or celebrated cases have also been made public debates and this now leads to the present discussion: Reform of the prohibition of research into jury deliberations is long overdue. Discussion: “Research” in this instance could be wide and varied in meaning as there are other extrapolating questions with regards to jury deliberation itself. Are questions limited to the AC 1118 (protection of free debate in the jury room) only? Are there other contradicting details about the jury process which the public must know and that should be properly acted upon? Does “research” apply to the outsiders, or the jurors themselves? As Section 8(1) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 provides: “(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, it is a contempt of court to obtain, disclose or solicit any particulars of statements made, opinions expressed, arguments advanced or votes cast by members of a jury in the course of their deliberations in any legal proceedings,” making votes, discussions and other related issues on jury deliberations sacrosanct before the law. In this instance, it is against the law that jurors themselves impart any information or knowledge with regards to the case at hand, so that they are to live life like the case does not exist at all. And this is to allow implementation of AC 1118, of which may be interpreted as to protect the jurors, or the court decision, and the public in general. Court cases that have touched on the issue of “protection of free debate in the jury room” include Regina v. Smith of which it tried to question why or how come that in those cases where the court was informed of some misconduct on the part of jurors, steps were not done to rectify what has gone wrong (UKP, 2006). In the R v Mirza (2004) case, AC 1118 was also indicated of important clause as an important feature of the jury’s work protecting “individual jurors from exposure to pressure to explain the reasons which had actuated them individually to arrive at their verdict,” (House of Lords, 2005). Likewise, R v Young Stephen (Bar Council, 2006) has also been mentioned as one of the most notorious case. Incidentally, it was emphasized in a report that section 8 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 on disclosing or obtaining information relating to jury room deliberations were addressed to third parties (Procter, 2006) in the discussion mentioned. One example of this contradictory deliberation was the case “Her Majesty’s Attorney General (Respondent) v. Scotcher (Appellant) (Criminal Appeal from Her Majesty’s High Court of Justice) of which one Keith Scotcher has been charged of contempt of court. In the deliberation, it was established that appellant Scotcher was summoned for jury service in January 2000 for a case against two brothers criminally charged. In February 20 of that same year, an anonymous letter was sent to the mother of the two defendants in the criminal case of which contents include among others: “Dear Mrs Anderson I was the one jury member who held out against the prosecution case at the trial of [A] and [B]. I would like you to seriously consider, as I’m sure you are already, talking to your counsels about appealing the convictions on the grounds of an unsafe conviction, miscarriage of justice, or whatever. [XXXX] When we first went out the voting was close XXXX. Many changed their vote late on simply because they wanted to get out of the courtroom and go home. … I tried to show the Jury that this was how people were fitted up, and that there was not enough evidence to convict anybody. I’m sorry I did not succeed and I wish you XX success in your further efforts. Yours sincerely – ANON XXXX I was a shop steward XXXX for 18 years and know how people get framed for things. … The ‘leader’ of this pack was XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX saying they are drug dealers,etc, and should be locked away. There was no proof of this. … I hope these are grounds in law to show that the verdict was unsafe. Don’t know if it can be shown that the Judge misdirected the jury. good luck! Please do not show this letter to: - police/judge/pros Counsel.” In this instance, it was also established that Scotcher, and that anybody summoned to render jury service in any Crown Court are always given a booklet entitled “You and Your Jury Service” of which contents include instructions among others on warnings such as “Warning: When you become a juror you must never discuss the case with anyone who is not a member of the jury. Talk about the case only in the jury room when all the jury are present,” “You must not talk about the case outside the jury room. You must not show or tell anyone details of: ¦ statements made ¦ opinions given ¦ arguments put forward ¦ votes cast by you or any other juror during the jury’s deliberations. If you do, you will be in contempt of court and you may be sent to prison or have to pay a fine.” Besides the written warnings, jurors are also warned through a video that says: “It is a contempt of court, which may be punishable by imprisonment, to get or disclose the opinions of jurors or the way they voted in their deliberations.” Interestingly, and in careful analysis, a sound excuse, Scotcher, in his defence, argued that: by virtue of section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (“the 1998 Act”), section 8(1) had to be interpreted as including such a defence so as to make it compatible with article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. If this could not be done, then the House should make a declaration of incompatibility under section 4 of the 1998 Act. 14. Article 10 of the Convention provides inter alia: “1 Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to … impart information and ideas without interference by public authority…. 2 The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society … for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.” The case also quoted on Lord Woolf CJ that issued the Practice Direction (Crown Court: Guidance to Jurors) [2004] 1 WLR 665, which amended the consolidated criminal practice direction so as to provide inter alia: “IV.42.6 Trial judges should ensure that the jury is alerted to the need to bring any concerns about fellow jurors to the attention of the judge at the time, and not wait until the case is concluded. At the same time, it is undesirable to encourage inappropriate criticism of fellow jurors, or to threaten jurors with contempt of court. IV.42.7 Judges should therefore take the opportunity, when warning the jury of the importance of not discussing the case with anyone outside the jury, to add a further warning. It is for the trial judge to tailor the further warning to the case, and to the phraseology used in the usual warning. The effect of the further warning should be that it is the duty of jurors to bring to the judge’s attention, promptly, any behaviour among the jurors or by others affecting the jurors, that causes concern. The point should be made that, unless that is done while the case is continuing, it may be impossible to put matters right.” Technical considerations are also of note in this instance as matters of discussion during jury deliberation are inadmissible in the court of law. Likewise, the case discussion also added that “the trilogy of verbs in section 8(1) also suggests - that the principal concern of Parliament was to prevent jurors from being harassed to reveal their deliberations,” following another celebrated case “Attorney General v New Statesman and Nation Publishing Co Ltd [1981] QB” of which a verdict was that the publication did not affect nor alter jury deliberation and court decision. Although it may always be argued that trust is concerned in the maintenance of the sanctity of the jury’s deliberation making its members continue to feel confident in the discussion with candour issues in the case before them of which their individual views or arguments are not revealed to the court, it cannot be at most times applicable to make the jurors free of doubt and misconduct. Although it was also quoted in the case that: In R v Mirza the House was concerned with two matters: first, the admissibility of allegations of misconduct made by a juror after the verdict and, secondly, the power of the trial court to investigate allegations of misconduct coming to light before the jury returned their verdict. In these circumstances the House did not need to consider the position of the juror making the complaint. Nevertheless, the reasoning of the House casts light on that question,” The verdict on Scotcher was guilty as charged. In the debate as to which juries must be subject to research, a consultation paper has been sent around major governmental offices dealing with the laws of the land. The views on the following were sought: “any or all aspects of the way in which juries deliberate should be subject to research; there are any circumstances in which a jury’s deliberations should be subject to external investigation beyond the court, including after the proceedings have been concluded; any aspect of the common law rule rendering inadmissible any evidence from jury deliberations should be clarified or amended,” (Bar Council, 2006).  The Courts of England and Wales recommended that: “there be no amendment of section 8 of the Contempt of Court Act to enable research into juries’ deliberations; and there should be consideration of existing research in other jurisdictions with a view to identifying useful material about how juries arrive at their verdicts,” (Bar Council, 2006). The Bar Council, likewise, upholds the present Contempt of Court Act and “respectfully agree with observations of Lord Rodger of Earlsferry in Mirza: “If it were indeed possible to devise a workable exception which would not eat up the rule, then that might be the ideal solution. But over the years judges of the highest authority have considered the matter and have not found such a solution. They have therefore affirmed the rule the evidence about jurors’ deliberations should not be admitted.” (qtd., from the Bar Council, 2006). Likewise, the Bar Council also admitted to supporting the Government’s view in the judgment of the House of Lords on Mirza that there is no need for a change in the law of investigation of allegations of juror impropriety and that allegations should be dealt with on a case to case basis developed within the common law. Conclusion: In view of the discussion presented, I would say that there are intricacies of the court as well as laws of the land that may remain questionable and cause endless debates. Since the court of law was to uphold the rights of people, protect lives and properties of the public in general, it must be open to permissible evidence against impropriety among jurors during deliberation. The questionable acts of jurors has been the subject of popular debates such as presented in the movie “The Jury” as convincing probable causes to act in a way that diminishes the credibility of the body during vote casting was presented. Since most of the instances of outside influences are very much possible, and at probability being practiced already, it is but just about time that research on jury deliberation must not only be questioned but properly guarded. If for reasons which the experts of the law may find that research on jury deliberation as well as tight security cannot prevent other questionable acts in court, then, the act or section 8 on Contempt of Court Act must then be amended. Consideration for upholding truth and justice for those who can and may not afford it is one aspect of the law that must be carefully instigated. The section of which it was noted in Scotcher’s case, “the trilogy of verbs in section 8(1) also suggests - that the principal concern of Parliament was to prevent jurors from being harassed to reveal their deliberations” is an interesting discussion as this may imply that juror harassment is the main purpose for the clause, of which, it reverses the rule on the obstruction of justice. What I mean with this is that the juror’s cause has much more weight than justice and fairness for the parties involved in the trial. If this is the case, then, the use of jury in criminal case deliberations must be an outright questionable practice as it can no longer be ascertained whether or not juries are after their own good, whether they are under duress from outside forces or parties, under any other influence such as financial or security, or downright indifference. In this instance, the laws of court is in jeopardy. Reference: Bar Council, The. “The Response Of The Law Reform Committee Of The General Council Of The Bar To The Consultation Paper (CP 04/05) Issued By The Department Of Constitutional Affairs Entitled Jury Research And Impropriety.” Department of Constitutional Affairs. “Freedom of information Act.” Crown Copyright. From http://www.dca.gov.uk/rights/dca/pubscheme.htm Health and Safety Executive. “The Hearing.” May 5, 2005. From http://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/enforcementguide/court/magistrates/hearing.htm House of the Lords. “OPINIONS OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL FOR JUDGMENT IN THE CAUSE Regina v. Smith (Appellant) (2004) (No 2) (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)) Regina v. Mercieca (Appellant) (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division))” 16 FEBRUARY 2005. From http://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache:lXgu0WpNZycJ:www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200405/ldjudgmt/jd050216/smith.pdf+Rv+Mirza+%5B2004%5D&hl=en&gl=ph&ct=clnk&cd=2&client=firefox-a House of Lords. “OPINIONS OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL FOR JUDGMENT IN THE CAUSE Her Majesty’s Attorney General (Respondent) v. Scotcher (Appellant) (Criminal Appeal from Her Majesty’s High Court of Justice.)” May 19, 2005. From http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldjudgmt/jd050519/scot.pdf Procter, Diana. “Crime — Jury — Retirement to consider jury — Juror after defendants conviction alleging jurors misconduct during deliberations in jury room — Whether allegations admissible — Whether jurisdiction to investigate allegations — Contempt of Court Act 1981, s 8 — Human Rights Act 1998, Sch 1, Pt 1, art 6(1).” From http://www.stjosephs.s-tyneside.sch.uk/resources/Law/lawExtraReading/A2/Unit4Homicide/R%20v%20Mirza;%20R%20v%20Connor%20and%20Rollock%20%5B2004%5D%20UKHL%202.htm The United Kingdom Parliament. “Judgments - Regina v. Smith (Appellant) (2004) (No 2) (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)) Regina v. Mercieca (Appellant) (On appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division))”. 2006. From http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200405/ldjudgmt/jd050216/smith-1.htm Your Right To Know. “Response to FOIA request for Attorney General’s Iraq advice.” January 27, 2005. From http://www.yrtk.org/2005/response-to-foi-on-atty-generals-advice/ Research Trail: 1. As already enumerated under the Reference section, I have considered all of the above articles or publications for the completion of this essay. 2. All of these items were taken online with the corresponding website or URL address indicated. At first, it was difficult for me to find the relevant data needed as “R v Mirza” typed alone on the search engine (Google) search box contained most cases or websites that mentioned “R v Mirza.” The clauses AC 1118 as well as section 8 of the Contempt of Court Act clauses appeared in most of the articles I viewed, so that in my next searches, I have tried to look for “AC 1118” as well as “section 8 of Contempt of Court Act.” 3. As for relevance, I am rating the case on Scotcher as well the article from The Bar Council as the most relevant in my research. Reliability are of course weighted on the articles taken from the House of Lords, while objectivity can be said of the articles by Procter as well as the House of Lords on Scotcher. Authority is also scored high in The Bar Council article and the House of Lord’s Scotcher case. Read More