Currently, when an individual in Great Britain is accused of a serious criminal offence, they are entitled to have their case heard by a jury of their peers. These individuals will be the judges of fact in the case and will ultimately conclude if the defendant is guilty or not guilty. The trial will be presided over by a Judge who will ensure that it is held in a legally correct manner and explain any technical points of law to the jury. It is then up to the barristers on either side to argue that their version of events and interpretation of the facts is the correct one. So far so good.
Who is eligible to sit on these pannels? It is technically the civic duty of all British citizens to serve on a jury. Names are selected at random from the electoral register. Obviously some people are exempt; legal professionals and those associated either with the defendant or victim are the obvious example but there are others.
This still leaves a vast reserve of others to hear cases but this leaves another potential problem. I used the phrase, "trial by peers" earlier. How are peers defined? If I were to define my peers (especially ones I would want making decisions over my criminality and potentially liberty) I would describe the individuals as being educated to degree level from a good university, employed in a respectable profession, aged over about 25 and an avid reader of the Telegraph. Wear trainers out of the gymn? Thanks but no thanks! Vegetarian? On your bike! Cliff Richard fan? Are you even allowed out in public?
These examples are comedic (I hope) but illustrate that one's own definition of one's peers may differ greatly from an outsider's perspective. In reality, although both legal teams have the ability to challenge individual jurors, there is not a lot of choice on offer.
Now what about those that are selected? Straw polls of those I know suggest that the vast majority of them emphatically do not want to serve on a jury. The reasons vary. For those that are self-employed or paid by the hour, the time spent away from work will inevitably hit them hard financially (usually despite compensation available from the court service). Those that operate on commission don't fare too much better. Slightly less tangible are those whose promotion and salary increases are performance related. If one isn't working, how can one perform? Of course there are provisions in employment law to prevent discrimination on this ground but I would wager it would be a hard case to prove. Then there are those who, for personal or professional reasons, would find jury service a difficult and unpleasant task. The Courts do have discretion to discharge individuals but if you're unlucky they could still play the civic duty card. This may be the case but it hardly makes for a positive attitude in the Court room.
This is not the only problem that can be encountered. In my limited experience of criminal courts, I have seen several jurors who do not have sufficient grasp of the English language to understand the proceedings. Others just may not be able to understand the proceedings. Yet more may bring personal prejudices and biases into the court room despite instructions to remain impartial. On top of this, there is always the risk of one very dominant juror who carries the rest along in their wake.
While examples of all of these are unlikely to occur in every jury, the presence of even one could well seriously compromise the integrity of the jury.
In addition, humans are generally subjective beings. This translates to the odds of an innocent verdict being greatly increased if the jury likes the defendant (or dislikes the victim). John Mortimer's character Rumpole used to be adamant that the key to securing an acquittal was to ensure the client stood up straight, wore a tie and kept their hands out their pockets. While this method is far from foolproof, it will go a long way to getting the jury on side as will speaking clearly and politely, being cooperative, making eye contact with jurors and not chewing.
Playing on a jury's doubts will also work in the defendant's favour. Emphasising that they have to be ABSOLUTELY sure that the defendant is guilty should set the cat among the pigeons.
The point I am trying to make from the above examples is that the trial system as it stands is very complex, confusing and frankly intimidating; especially as most jurors will have had minimal exposure to the Court system before. This combined with the potential reluctance of some jurors to be there and the lack of comprehension from others vastly reduces the likelihood of a fair trial.
Does this system serve the interests of justice? Broadly, probably. It's a damn site better than a lot of other systems out there. It's strength is that it introduces an element of consensus to the decision that would be more difficult to achieve if the decisions were made exclusively by judges.
I do think there is room for improvement however. Rather than dragging people off the street who do not want to be there or who cannot understand what is going on, encourage citizens to volunteer for the role. Ultimately, I think it would be a positive step to have a bank of jurors who have opted into the system, are keen and interested to hear cases and are prepared to be utterly objective (perhaps even given training for the purpose). This could be done either on a strictly voluntary basis or on a professional basis or indeed both depending on the circumstances of the individual.
In my opinion, such a system would cause decisions to be made exclusively on the facts of the case and for those facts to be thoroughly and objectively scrutinised. The decision would still be made by lay people however they would be used to the Court environment and the intricacies involved and therefore far more likely to come to a just conclusion.
I admit, there are a few potential pitfalls. I can imagine the ranks swelling with law students trying to gain legal experience and studying the Counsel rather than the case. Even excluding this, another demographic that would logically suggest its self would be the recently retired looking for something new. Again, this would mean that there was a rather fixed sort of background to those hearing cases which may not be in any way similar to that of the client. I would argue that this shouldn't be too much of a problem so long as those hearing cases were prepared and trained to be totally objective.
Hopefully this little ramble has been interesting. In conclusion, I am certainly not saying the current system of trial by jury is broken beyond the pale; I am simply suggesting what I think is an improvement to make it even better.
JR
No comments:
Post a Comment