Juries

Bushels Case - This is where the judge would not accept the not guilty verdict and sent all the jurors to prison and wouldn't let them out until they paid a fine. This decision was later turned over by the Court of Common Pleas and the Jury was ordered to be set free

Crown Court - Indictable offences

High Court - Queen's Bench Division

County Court - Same reasons for QBD's use

Coroners Court - only in some cases

Juries have 12 members in the crown court

- They must first decidce whether the claimant has proved their case and won the claim

- If the claimant wins they must decide the amount of damages that need to be awarded by the defendant to the claimant

- That personal injury cases should only be tried by a judge alone because compensatory meassures had to be considered and this involves needing indepth legal knowledge

- Only in exceprional circumstances can the case be tried by a Jury

Section 69 of the Senior Courts Act
Section 66 of the County Courts Act

If the case involves:

- Defamation
- Malicious Prosecution
- False Imprisonment
- Fraud

The personal injury claim (as a result of the Kings cross fire) could not be tried by jruyies as there were technical point that needed to be looked at by specialist experts.

(a) if the death was in custody and was of a violent, unnatural or unknown nature

(b) if the death was a result of a police officers actions

(c) If the death was caused by a notifiable accident, poisoning or disease

1) aged between 18 to 70

2) registered as voter at local or central level

3) A resident of the UK for atleast 5 years since their 13th Birthday

4) Mentally Sound

5) Not already disqualified

- Imprisoned, detained or in custody for life

- Imprisonedor detained for public protection

- an exteneded sentence awarded

- Any imprisonment served within the last 10 years

- Any suspended sentences passed on them within the last 10 years

- At any time in the last 10 years had a community sentence ordered upon them

1) They are defined as:
- having a mental disorder
- resident of a hospital or similar institution or..
- recieves regular medical treatment from a practioner

2) They must have guardianship under s7 of the Mental Health Act (1983)

3) A person who, has been determined by a judge, unable to administer their own property and affairs

It does not distinguish ebtween those recieving treatment for mild dpression from their GP and those sectioned under the mental Health Act 1983

In June 1995 - A deaf man was prevented from sitting on a jury as he needed a sign language interpreter in the room with him. This would have breached the secrecy of the Jury and as no other people are allowed in the Jury room the man was unsuitable to be able to sit as a juror.

All those in essential occupations such as doctors, pharmasists, teachers etc. did not have to take part in Jury service if they felt that it could effect their work.

Full-time serving members of the armed forces may be excused from jury service their commanding officer certiies that their abscence from duty (because of jury service) would be prejudical to the efficiency of the service.

- Being too ill
- Having a disability that would make it impossible to be on a Jury
- Being a mother/father will a small baby and no one to look after it
- Business appointments that can be taken by no one else
- examinsations or holidays that have been booked 

Those in the legal profession:

Lawyers
Police Servicemen/women
Judges 

- A judge may sit on a jury as part of his duty as a citizen

- Excusal will only be granted in extreme circumstances

- A judge does not have to disclose information of his positiion when he sits on a jury

- Routine police checks
- Wider background checks

R v Crown - This is where the defence vetted (routine police checks) the jury and it was said this was a breach of the jury's rights to privacy

However...

R v Mason (1980) - The Jury were vetted (routine police checks) and it was held by the police that they were doing this to prevent crime ie. to stop disqaulifees from sitting on the jury

Can only be used for national security + terrorist cases:

ABC trial (1978)

This is where the courts can get any suitable individual off the street if there aren't enough qualified people on the jury in the first group of people summoned.

To the array (s.5 Juries Act 1974) - This is used on the basis that the jurors were chosen in a baised way:

- R v Romford - all the jurors lived too closely to one another and were all from the same area

- R v Fraser - There were no ethnic minorities on the jury

For Cause -  The prosecution or defence must point out a valid reason why an indiviudal(s) can't serve on the Jury:

- R v Sprason and R v Wilson - One of the jurors was a wife of a prison officer who had had contact with the two defendants

Prosecutions right to stand by Jurors -  Only the presection can exercise this, and they can makesure that ceartain jurors are put to the end of a list so they can't sit that case.

- Selection from the electoral register doesn't always give a representitive sample of the population

- There is an under representation of the lower classes and the unemployed

- Many disqaulified people sit on juries anyway due to lack of disclosure about themseleves.

Advantages:
- Public confidence
- Democratic
- Impartial
- Secret
- Jury Equity

Disadvantages:
- Jury Nobbling
- Secrecy (misunderstandings can't be corrected)
- Perverse Decisions
- Racial Bias
- Media Influence
- Lack of Understanding
- Complex Cases e.g. Fraud

- Trial by single judge

- A pannel of judges

- A judge and lay assessors

- A mini Jury