Jury Duty – The Pros and Cons of 12 Good Men and True
Since spring 2004, unless you are on bail, have previous convictions or served a prison sentence or unless you are currently or have in the past suffered from a mental health problem, you can serve on a jury…
Under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, solicitors, barristers and even judges may now be called for jury service. In broadening the scope of potential jurors, Tony Blair’s government rejected concerns that lawyers might exert undue influence over fellow jurors without specialist knowledge of the legal system.
The middle-class opt-out from jury service used to be one big flaw in the system. Juries, apparently, were dominated by the unemployed and by housewives and no longer represented the population at large. The CJA 2003 aimed to correct this by preventing judges, lawyers, doctors, priests and others from skiving their civic duty.
Understandably then that there has been some consternation caused last week when the trial of four men accused of an armed raid at a Heathrow warehouse began in London and no jury was sworn in. This is the first time any criminal case in England and Wales has been heard without a jury for nearly 400 years. And not everyone thinks it’s a bad thing, Jeremy Clarkson for one:
Being tried by 12 good men and true sounds brilliant but if, God forbid, you were to find yourself in the dock charged with a crime you did not commit, would you want to be tried by 11 dinner ladies and Trigger from Only Fools and Horses? Or Wayne Rooney? Or Piers Morgan?
Speaking personally, I’d far rather plead my case in front of nothing but a judge. I know that some are a bit doddery, and that many live in houses with no central heating, but most are more astute than the alternative: 11 lunching ladies and Benny from Crossroads.
Not convinced by Clarkson’s impeccable logic, then check out what this jury sitting on a rape and murder trial got up to during the course of the hearing. Bloomberg’s headline gives you a hint: “Chocolate Sex Gifts From Jury Put Guilty Verdict in Jeopardy”
Jurors gave a chocolate penis to the judge and chocolate breasts to the bailiff, planned a reunion with the bailiff and spoke with the judge at a restaurant, according to post-trial jury interviews conducted by the defense lawyer.
“The unusual facts raise a serious question about the fairness of a capital trial,” the high court’s five-justice majority wrote [on reviewing the case].
As lawyers, you will already know the history and underlying principles of trial by jury but can you see where he’s coming from?
