HideShow resource information
View mindmap
  • Jurors
    • Impartiality
      • This is where the jury are not case hardened like judges
        • Disadvantages
          • No right to a racially balance jury R V FORD.
          • Previously too many excusals under the JURORS ACT 1974
        • Advantages
          • Randomly selected jury creating a cross section of society deciding a verdict
          • 12 jurors is better than 1 judge
    • Secrecy
      • All the jurys deciding is done in secret
        • Disadvantages
          • We dont know how they reached the verdict. Like in the case of R V YOUNG where one juror had brought a ouija board to contact the victim.
          • Jurors understanding cannot be checked
          • More difficult to appeal if you dont know they reason for deciding
        • Advantages
          • The jury doesnt have to give a reason for their verdict, protecting them from pressure.
    • Equity
      • Jury equity is where the jurors decide a verdict upon conscience rather than facts. This could lead to a peverse verdict.
        • An exmaple of this is in R V OWEN where owen had shot the lorry driver that have drunkenly ran over and killed his son - the jury found him not guilty even though there was substantial evidence that he had.
          • Disagvantages
            • Leads to perverse verdicts
            • Seen as unfair as one person may be let off for a crime when the other has been sentenced for the same thing.
          • Advantages
            • Jury decide their verdict on what they see fair - could oppose a change in the law CLIVE PONTING
    • Challenges
      • For cause
        • An individual juror. If it is suspected that they may a witness or the victim/defendant or if they are disquaified
      • To the array
        • To the whole jury.
      • Prosection right to "stand by"
        • Prosecution has the right to put a juror to the end of a list. prosecution does not have to give reason but it must be used sparingly.
    • Basic qualifications
      • JURORS ACT 1974 amended by the CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003
        • Between the ages of 18 - 70, on the electrol roll and to have lived in the UK from birth or for five years from the age of 13.
          • People are selected  through the Jurors central summoning buraeu
    • Defferrals & Excusals
      • A person can be deffered up to 12 months if they have other important issues to deal with such as business commitment, exams or an operation.
      • Excusals are for exceptional circumstances, the sort of people that be excused are those over 65, served in the last 2 years, in the armed forces, in the medical proffession, members of parliament although this now doesnt apply to people in essential jobs. Now you are ususally to be defferred rather than excused.
    • Disqualifications
      • If youre on bail for a criminal offence
        • Disqualified for 10 years if you have served a custodial sentence for 5 years or under
          • Disqualified for life if this sentence is 5 years or over.
            • Disqualified if you have a mental disorder.
              • Disqualified if you are blind or deaf as you cannot hear or see the evidence.
                • If you serve on a jury and you know you are disqualified then you could be fined.
    • Vetting
      • Police check
        • 1) to elminate those disqualified
        • 2) if the defendant is a police officer R V SHEFFIELD CROWN COURT
      • Background check
        • 2)  National security issue such as a terrorist case.
        • 1) Only in exceptional circumstance - Need the judges permission
    • Functions & Verdicts
      • The use of a jury is to provide a unaminous verdict.The jurors dont have to give a reason or their verdict. The judge decides on points of law and the jurors decide facts which the judge must agree with (BUSHELLS CASE)
      • Beyond reasonable doubt


No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all The Criminal courts and lay people resources »