Work and role of jury
What the jury do
Juries are used in all serious criminal cases (indictable offences) and have the sole responsibility for determining guilt of the Defendant.
The jury member is first sworn in to work as a member of 12 randomly selected panel who listen to the evidence in criminal cases in the Crown Court. They have no formal qualifications Jurors must be listen to evidence from the prosecution and defence for which they can take written notes. They can also ask questions of witnesses through the judge. At the end of the case by the prosecution and defence closing speeches will be made and the judge will summarise the case and explain the relevant legal issues, including a structured set of questions to assist them if it is a difficult case.
The jury’s function is to weigh up the evidence and decide what are the true facts of a case in Crown court. They then make either a “guilty” or “not guilty” verdict as to whether the D has committed the offence.
The jury then retire to the jury room and elect a foreperson to speak to the court on their behalf. No reasons can be given for a jury’s verdict.
How the jury come to a decision
The Contempt of Court Act 1981 makes the disclosure of what happens in the jury room a criminal offence so no discussion of how the final decision is reached or what was discussed can be mentioned to anyone outside the jury.
Since the Criminal Justice Act 1967 there are 3 verdicts a jury can give. A unanimous verdict is the verdict the judge will ask for at the end of the trial. If the jury cannot agree one verdict between all 12 of them then, after minimum of 2 hours, the judge can accept either a 10 out of 12 or 11 out of 12 verdict (about 20% of convictions each year).
The judge’s role in the case
The judge will try and explain the law in simple terms to the jury and direct them as to what evidence is important and acceptable when they are thinking of the innocence or guilt of the defendant.
At the end of the prosecution’s case or the whole case the judge may decide there isn’t enough evidence for the defendant to be convicted “beyond reasonable doubt” and in these circumstances the judge will direct(tell) the jury to return a formal verdict of “not guilty”. This known as a directed acquittal.
However a judge cannot in any circumstances force a jury to make a “guilty” verdict, as confirmed in the case of R v Wang. In this case Wang was charged with having an article with a blade or point in a public place, he was found with a Shaolin knife in his bag on a train station platform. His defence was he carried the knife to practice his Buddhist religion so evidence he owned the blade and therefore had committed the offence was beyond doubt. The judge directed the jury to find Wang guilty and the D appealed as a result. Wang argued that the jury should be allowed to decide on the evidence as to what a fair verdict was regardless of what the law says should be the outcome of the case. The appeal was allowed, the House of Lords agreeing with Wang and stating that no one is allowed to tell a jury to find a guilty verdict, including the judge.
1