English Law revision.

[Quindiana Jones]

I have my Law AS exam tomorrow. This is my revision, because my hand hurts from writing. Feel free to have a read through if you like, and if anyone's doing the same as me then shout if you see something I've missed. It's all from memory, and I'll update it as I complete different parts of my To Do list.

To Do:

• Juries - selection - DONE.
• Juries - advantages and disadvantages - DONE.
• Lay Magistrates - selection and training
• Lay Magistrates - advantages and disadvantages
• Solicitors - training and work
• Barristers - training and work
• ADR - mediation and arbitration
• Tribunals
• ADR - mediation and arbitration advantages and disadvantages
• Tribunals - advantages and disadvantages
• Probably something else....

Juries Act 1974 set out guidelines for selection.

Qualifications:
- must be on electoral roll;
- must be aged between 18 and 70;
- must have lived in the UK, Channel Islands or the Isle of Man for 5 years since their 13th birthday;
- must NOT BE DISQUALIFIED.

Disqualifications:
- must not have been given life imprisonment or a custodial sentence of more than 5 years;
- must not have been given any other custodial sentence or suspended sentence within the last 10 years;
- must not have been given a community sentence within the last 10 years;
- must not currently be on bail.

Failure to disclose the fact that you are disqualified can result in a fine of up to £5000.

Discretionary excusals and deferrals
You can ask to be excused (at the bailiffs discretion ) or for your jury service to be put back to another time for:
- the death or illness of a close relative;
- your own health reasons;
- religious festivals;
- a pre-booked holiday.

Failure to attend court can result in a fine of up to £1000.

Lack of capacity:
- Mentally ill people are exempt from jury service;
- the judge can send a juror away if they: are blind/deaf, can't understand English, find the case too traumatic.

Vetting:
- the extra checking of jurors for religious or political background.

The Criminal Justice Act 2003 scrapped:
Ineligibility:
- Anyone involved in the administration of justice - i.e. judges, barristers, solicitors, clerks etc - didn't have to serve.

Excusal as of right:
- Members of Parliament, the armed forces, and the medical profession didn't have to serve;
- the essential services - i.e. firemen - didn't have to serve.

Decision making:
- Unanimous -all agreed- decision is preferable;
- Judge can accept majority verdict -10 to 2 or greater- if jury cannot decide unanimously.

Secrecy:
-Jurors are not allowed to disclose anything that was said or done in the case.

Role - Juries:
- listen to audio evidence - i.e. tape recordings, cross-examinations by barristers;
- look at visual evidence - i.e. CCTV, cross-examinations by barristers;
- go on site visits to the scene of the crime;
- take notes, and can send relevant notes to the judge;
- decide the facts of the case;
- retire to the jury room and select a foreman;
- decide in secret if defendant is guilty or not guilty.



Advantages of a Jury:

1. Public Confidence
- The public trust the jurors' decision because the defendant is being tried by his peers

2. Jury Equity/Fairness
- Jurors don't have to give reasons for their verdict
- Jurors don't have to follow precedents or Acts of Parliament

3. Open System of Justice
- The judge's explanation of the law to the jury opens up the judicial system
- The public are involved in the distribution of justice

4. Secrecy of Jury Room
- Jury is free from pressure and outside influence
- Jury can make unpopular verdicts without fear

5. Impartiality/Unbiased
- Jury isn't connected to anyone in the case
- Random selection gives a good cross-section of society
- No one person is responsible for the decision


Disadvantages of a Jury

1. Perverse Decisions
- Jury doesn't have to give reasons for their decision
- They could acquit a clearly guilty man - i.e. Ponting's Case - civil servant leaked information about a ship

2. Secrecy
- Members of the jury could be quashing unbiased jurors and making an unfair decision
- Jury could be being petty - i.e. making the decision based on the defendant's appearance

3. Media Influence
- Jurors are told to ignore everything they may have heard or read, and make their decision based solely on the evidence given. BUT...
- The jury could still be basing their decision on the news coverage

4. Racial Bias
- Jurors could be being racially bias - for or against
- Usually countered by other jurors

5. Lack of Understanding
Runciman Commission found that:
- only 56% of jurors say they understood the case
- 1% say they didn't understand anything

6. High Acquittal Rate
- Just under 40% of cases end with acquittal

7. Other
- Expensive - loss of earnings and travel expenses are both paid for
- Jurors may rush decision because they don't like jury duty


Summary of Juries:

Juries Act 1974 set out selection rules:
- Qualifications
- Disqualifications
- Discretionary Excusals and Deferrals
- Lack of Capacity
- Vetting

Criminal Justice Act 2003 scrapped:
- Ineligibility
- Excusal as of right

Jury:
- Decision
- Secrecy
- Role

Advantages:
1. Public Confidence - trial by peers
2. Jury Equity/ Fairness - no precedents or Acts of Parliament
3. Open System of Justice - public have a role is distributing justice
4. Secrecy of Jury Room - no pressure on jury
5. Impartiality/ Unbiased - cross-section of society

Disadvantages:
1. Perverse Decisions - no reasons for decision
2. Secrecy - could be making unfair decisions
3. Media Influence - could believe everything they read
4. Racial Bias - racism usually countered by other jurors
5. Lack of Understanding - Runciman Commission - 56% good, 1% bad
6. High Acquittal Rate - 40% let go
7. Other - expensive and dislike of duty