Advantages and Disadvantages of the jury

system
Advantages of the Jury System
Long established trial by peers which has public confidence
Lord Devlin, a famous House of Lords judge, has said that trial by jury is the
lamp that shows that freedom lives, arguing that a defendant has the right to
be tried by his peers.
Supporters of this view maintain that a jury will exercise common sense rather
than slavishly follow the law. For example the case of R v Wang W was charged
with having an article with a blade or point in a public place, he was found with a
Shaolin knife in his bag on a train station platform. His defence was he carried
the knife to practice his Buddhist religion so evidence he owned the blade and
therefore had committed the offence was beyond doubt. The judge directed the
jury to find Wang guilty and the D appealed as a result. Wang argued that the
jury should be allowed to decide on the evidence as to what a fair verdict was
regardless of what the law says should be the outcome of the case. The appeal
was allowed, the House of Lords agreeing with Wang and stating that no one is
allowed to tell a jury to find a guilty verdict, including the judge. A jury only have
to make a decision based on what it fair and common sense and as they are not
paid by anyone such as the government, they are free from political interference
and bias.
The fairness of an open trial
The Public also have confidence as the jury members are not trained and are
trusted due to less professional involvement. 85% of those polled by the Bar
Council in 2003 had confidence in jury verdicts showing that this system of
delivering criminal justice is supported by a large section of society as being fair.
For example in R v Kronlid and Others (1996) a group of people were charged
with criminal damage to a Hawk Fighter Plane. They did so because the plane
was going to be sold to the Indonesian government, and there was a high risk
that they would use it to carry out genocide against East Timor. The jury clearly
believed that they were morally in the right, and so acquitted them.
The jury decide the case in an open court so there can be no bias or no
perception of bias in giving their verdict as any member of the public can watch.
As it is a public duty for which jury members do not get paid their verdicts are
seen as apolitical.
Jury Equity
The jury only has to decide the case on their view of what is fair so unlike judges
and lawyers the law is not as important. The word equity is simply another term
for fair.
For example in the case of R v Ponting The case revolved around the Falklands
conflict and the sinking of an Argentinian ship called the Belgrano, by a UK
1

submarine. Clive Ponting, who had worked at the Ministry of Defence, walked
free from court after a jury cleared him of breaking the Official Secrets Act.
Ponting had been charged with leaking an internal MoD document concerning the
General Belgrano, the Argentinian cruiser which British forces sank during the
1982 Falklands War, killing 360 people.
The government line had been that the Belgrano was threatening British lives
when it was sunk. But the document leaked by Ponting indicated it was sailing
out of the exclusion zone. Its publication was a huge embarrassment for Lady
Thatcher's government.
The judge had indicated that the jury should convict him. It was hailed as a
victory for the jury system as they clearly believed it was in the publics interest
to hear about this allegation of a government cover up and therefore the jury
must have felt such a public duty by Ponting should not be classed as a criminal
offence, regardless of the judges or politicians views on the matter. The not
guilty verdict was regarded as fair and equitable.
The elimination of bias
The jury are chosen totally at random with no link to the case. Sitting as a group
of 12 cancels out any potential bias from 1 member. Sir Sebag Shaw said a jury
is anonymous and independent and as jury service is a civic duty with no
payment decisions are as free from external interference and bias as possible.
Discussions in jury room are also protected by law and no reasons can be given
for the verdict delivered by the jury that can be challenged. This means decisions
made by the jury are as free bias as is possible helping achieve the fairest
verdict for the defendant based on the evidence heard.

Disadvantages of the Jury System

Media pressure
Coverage of high profile cases may influence a jury decision because they are
likely to have been reported in the media for a considerable amount of time
before the case even comes to court. This makes it hard for the jury to only use
evidence presented in the case.
For example in the case of R v West the first killing happened in 1967 with West
only being charged in 1994. Throughout this period local and national
newspapers had reported on missing persons related to the case and clearly the
jury risk being influenced by this press coverage. West tried to argue that this in
itself denied her a right to a fair trial in front of a jury but the Court of Appeal
held that correct directions by the judge to the jury would ensure fairness
prevailed.
However, with high profile cases of jury members allegedly doing their own
research clearly media pressure is still a potential disadvantage of using jury
members who do not have the professional training to resist such influences. See
the Joanna Fraill case on the website.

Perverse verdicts
A perverse verdict is a decision of a jury which runs altogether contrary to the
evidence presented before it. In other words if we accept the majority of society
2

to decide the case it would be at odds with the decision given by the jury in the
specific case.
As the jury cannot by law give reasons for its decisions or discuss its reasons for
a verdict some jury verdicts appear to run contrary to what would be described
as a fair outcome in a case.
For example in the case of Randle & Pottle v R. Both Ds assisted a famous spy
George Blake escape from prison and wrote a book about the escape. The jury
acquitted them even though they had admitted in the book of their guilt in
committing the offence. As the jury did not give any reason for this not guilty
verdict clearly the clear evidence of the Ds committing the offence printed in
their book seemed to show compelling evidence to find them guilty, hence this
being regarded as a perverse verdict.

Complexity of cases
Juries are legally untrained members of the public and therefore is some cases
have difficulty understanding complicated evidence.
This may partially account for high acquittal rates of 36%. In fraud cases a lot of
high profile cases have collapsed due to technical nature of evidence and the
inability of jury members to be able to understand what has happened, so they
can make a judgment as to guilt.
For example a Jury couldn't reach a verdict in 150m fraud case where Ds
convinced investors to buy complex financial contracts which were worthless.
This shows that for some cases juries may not be the best choice where evidence
is very complicated as jury members may fail to understand the evidence very
well, compared to a legally trained judge.
Jury Secrecy may mean bias
Jury give no reason for verdict and cannot discuss any views expressed in jury
room. Leaves the process open to prejudice and bias in coming to a decision.
In a recent survey undertaken by University College London 23% of jury
members were unsure as to whether they could use the internet to research
cases they sat on. 5% of jury members surveyed admitted to discussing the case
they were sitting on social media and clearly such research and discussion may
prejudice the discussions of one or more jury members into making a bias
decision unrelated to the evidence in the case.
For example in the case of R v Young. Four of the jurors are said to have used
Ouija board to contact one of the defendant's alleged victims to find out whether
the defendant had killed them. Clearly this wasnt based on evidence in the case
and was only found out as it happened in a hotel room where the jury were
staying rather than the jury room in the court. As the Contempt of Court Act
makes it a criminal offence to reveal how a decision on guilt is made by the jury
such secrecy could mean bias.