Section B:

Answer:08

The above question requires us to discuss concerning jury bias and use
of the internet. Making allowances in the question allude to as whether
the defence should be able to stand in one’s ground that the 3
members of the jury are from the identical background and ethnicity
as the defendant is a occurance of deliberation as to the gospel of as
to whether it would furnish more well grounded justice system or may
lead to some kind of chauvinism from the same side of defence if the
members of the jury is from the akin race.

A jury is sworn body of people convenced to render an impartial verdict

focusing on finding facts on the question,or to set a penalty or a
judgement.Juries tend to be found in courts to assert in guilt or lack
thereof in a crime whether a person may be guilty or not guilty.

The jury composed of 12 lay people selected at a random procedure to

hear a criminal lawsuit in the crown court. There part is to make
decision on the affair of in relation of the facts in lawsuit and even
decides that the accused is blameless or shall be charged as liable for
the stated offence.

The crown court trials account for only 200 of all criminal cases the
right to trial by the jury is recounted by lord devlin as it shows the
freedom of lives. However significant distrust about trial by jury both
in extensive and distinct types of cases.

The process starts by the local crown court office adopting a quantity
of people at random from the electoral register without knowing if
they are qualified to serve as a juror. There is a prospect for them to
be unqualified if they reunited with the administration the justice or
have some significant judgement of criminal act or misconduct in the
past.

However,the happenings of this affair is laborious to substantiate as

there is no set procedure without illiberal controls and it would be
feasible for the crown court solemn to have unenthusiastically settle
on a random at only the disputed area of the region.Their regions might
be to a large extent of wide,middle class,accommodate unreasonably
elevated people number of household from a specific ethnic minority.

Mr.Derbyshire appropriately discerns this bygone instituition evokes

vigorous emotions in the hearts of English and Welsh as it does to the
Americans and other living in the common law system which are the
daughters of English Legal System.This is because for centuries this
trial by jury ios a central of the legal system in UK.The use of an
individual(men and women) as actuality appropriator of the civil and
criminal cases was and still is be discerned by many people to be the
only democratic way of determining affairs of culpability and hold
accountable.Preferably,departing from it wholly in the hands of the
lawyers perhaps allowing a small proportion of the community to make
or take decisions from the facts of case and is only the main purpose
of having a jury.

Simultaneously,this is so it must be affirmed the jury has no part to

play in resolution as to be sentenced.Correspondingly,jury has no part
to play in resolution that is agitated with law or legal procedure.They
are and always have been a fact finder of the case and nothing more.

Furthermore,it may also noted that authorizing the defence to urge a

jury which may include jurors selected with the same background and
ethnicity as a defendant can lead to unfairness ore than justice.It may
also be noted that selecting jurors with a good background and depth
of knowledge can lead to clear a perception to finding the facts of a
case.However,if the juror can be biased towards the defendant if the
defendant is from an akin race.

Assorted scrutinization deportmented by academics such as Baldwin

and Mc Conelle says that juries has reached inexact an incontroversial
verdict.In some cases they go in favour of extreme methods of
deciding.In the case of (R v Kong) they used an Ouija board to decide
the verdict of the case.There is one of the problem in making rational
assessment of the case by jury is,does they have the depth of
knowledge and how they reach their verdict.The room of the juries are
protected by prohibition imposed by section 3 of the contempt of the
court at 1981.

Advantages-Considering the advantages,juries represent the common

public and thereof are more likely to judge in line with generally
accepted values of the societies.Furthermore,discussions among juries
can lead to more thorough consideration to all the aspects of the
case.It is also difficult to corrupt jurors than one or more judges.

Disadvantages-However,in considering the disadvantages,the juries are

bunch of amateurs who are unable to deal with more complex and
technical cases,when the judges which needs a special expertise to
judges or which the jury do not have that much of knowledge.Juries
decision is a group decision because it was not a decision of an
individual.But if they neglect their responsibility as a juror,it may led
to some injustice.

The introduction of modern media especially, internet, more questions

of jury fairness was raised. A jury was sentenced to prison for
searching about the D on the internet. The same thing can be seen in R
v Beard and R v Dabey. Even though they were told not to search on
the internet but they still did, So, the parliament created the criminal
justice and courts act 1981. Now searching on the internet , sharing it
or other information are indictable offences. Section 71 to 74.

The jury is considered as one of the fundamentals of a democratic

society.

Juries are described as unfair because juries return the wrong verdict
series of miscarriages of justice undermine confidence.

Section:C

In advising Adam on the followimg matters, the ivory act 2018, an act
to prohibit in Ivory connected purposes should be taken into account.

9) In determining whether Adam breach the prohibition on dealing with

ivory when he brought the key ring in chengdu, it is important to look
at Section 1 of the ivory act 2018.

Section 1(1) dealing in ivory is prohibited, dealing is explained in S.1.2

dealing in ivory means buying,selling,or hiring it.

The key ring is however not covere by the prohibitin in s.1 beacause
adam bought it outside the united kingdom and s.1.4(a) says that the
reference to buying in s.1.2(a) does not include buying outside the
united kingdom. So adam did not breach the prohibition on dealing in
ivory when he bought the key ring in chengdu.

10)Although Adam asks the shop to supply him with a key ring made of
an ivory but he does not mention whether the ivory should come from
the elephant included in extant elephants in the list of the act. He said
it should be like the one he bought in the picture he attcahes to the
email and we know that this is ivory within the meaing of the act.

s.1.2(b) dealing includes offering or arranging to buy and adam’s email is

clearly an offer under s.1.3.(c) to buy another key ring made of an
ivory. It seems that adam has breached the prohibition in S.1.