Showing posts with label Right to Trial by Jury. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Right to Trial by Jury. Show all posts
Thursday, 21 February 2013
There are some articles about 'juries' in the newspapers of Thursday 21st February - as a result of the dismissal of the jury in the Pryce case. If you are a student on the Open University's W200 course, or studying 'English Legal System' for a Law Degree or Law A-Level - it would be well worth reading at least one serious paper on the issue.
I identified stories & articles in the paper versions of
The Guardian p1,2 & 32
Independent p1,4 & 14
Online
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2013/feb/21/lawyers-jury-system-vicky-pryce
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/20/vicky-pryce-jury-did-its-duty
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2013/feb/21/vicky-pryce-case-jury-failure
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/vicky-pryce-trial-q-can-a-juror-come-to-a-verdict-based-on-a-reason-that-was-not-presented-in-court-and-has-no-facts-or-evidence-to-support-it-8503566.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/editorials/editorial-dont-blame-the-jury-system-for-this-failure-8503841.html
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/crime/article3693891.ece
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberaldemocrats/9883130/Jury-discharged-in-Vicky-Pryce-trial-after-failing-to-reach-verdict.html
David
Monday, 26 September 2011
Lay Involvement in the Judicial System
In England, judging has not been confined to the professionals. Ordinary people play a key role - and many people regard that as an important protection for liberty. Without their involvement justice would be administered solely by State Officials.
The two key areas involving non-State employees are
(1) in Magistrates Courts, where the norm is to have a bench of three lay magistrates hearing trials of summary offences (and who also may hear "triable either way" cases). All criminal cases start in Magistrates Courts - though indictable cases, and those "triable either way" where it is felt more appropriate to be heard in the Crown Court (a defendant may demand his right to a jury trial) - begin (usually only briefly) in the Magistrates Courts.
(2) in Crown Courts, where the decision on whether the defendant is found guilty or non-guilty, is given to a jury.
It is useful to be able to outline the qualifications/disqualifications for being a lay magistrate or a member of the jury. But it is just as, if not more, important to be able to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each type of lay involvement.
In previous posts I have included MindMaps - can I invite you to prepare your own MindMaps with the key points for each side of the argument. Do add pictures - and if you scan them in and send them to me , I will seek to publish them in a later post. This post from 2009 may be of some use to you.
The two key areas involving non-State employees are
(1) in Magistrates Courts, where the norm is to have a bench of three lay magistrates hearing trials of summary offences (and who also may hear "triable either way" cases). All criminal cases start in Magistrates Courts - though indictable cases, and those "triable either way" where it is felt more appropriate to be heard in the Crown Court (a defendant may demand his right to a jury trial) - begin (usually only briefly) in the Magistrates Courts.
(2) in Crown Courts, where the decision on whether the defendant is found guilty or non-guilty, is given to a jury.
It is useful to be able to outline the qualifications/disqualifications for being a lay magistrate or a member of the jury. But it is just as, if not more, important to be able to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each type of lay involvement.
In previous posts I have included MindMaps - can I invite you to prepare your own MindMaps with the key points for each side of the argument. Do add pictures - and if you scan them in and send them to me , I will seek to publish them in a later post. This post from 2009 may be of some use to you.
Monday, 12 October 2009
The role of lay people in the legal system

There is an argument for the completely professional judiciary. In many civil law systems, should you come before a court or tribunal, the person presiding over the case will be a fully trained and qualified judge. In both England and the USA non-legally qualified people continue to play a key role.
The right to trial by jury is entrenched in the VIth [Criminal cases] and VIIth [Civil cases] amendments to the US Constitution. In England (as entrenchment is incompatible with the doctrine of the sovereignty of Parliament), it lacks that protection - and a number of attempts have been made to reduce the availability of jury trials.
The argument for jury trials can be summarised as follows - Jury trial "is a fundamental right and an essential safeguard for the rule of law. Juries provide a barrier against oppressive and politically motivated prosecutions. They enhance the transparency of the court process and promote public confidence in the criminal justice system." (per - Law Society)
A more detailed argument can be found in the following article
In England lay magistrates continue to play a key role in the legal system. They deal with about 91% of criminal cases [95% of cases are finally dealt with in Magistrates Courts, but the 4% difference reflects the role played by Stipendiary [legally qualified Magistrates who sit alone, usually in the larger urban areas] Magistrates] - only the most serious are heard by a Judge and jury in the Crown Court. A detailed discussion of the value of magistrates can be read here.
Direct Gov has an article about becoming a magistrate and the work it involves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)


