“Innocent Or Guilty?”: Judges & Juries In The British Justice System.
Last year, there were 116 ‘hung juries’ in England & Wales: They couldn’t agree on whether the accused had committed the crime or not, so the judge had to order a retrial. Although this represented only 0.7% of the 16,718 cases which went to court, it was also a 70% increase on the figures for 2007. Jurors in Britain these days are, it seems, becoming more hesitant about reaching a decision. If they are ‘not sure’ the whole process has to be repeated with the same witnesses from both sides but a different jury, at a cost of up to £80,000 per day to the taxpayer . Judges are now allowed to accept majority verdicts (minimum 10 out of 12) if unanimity proves impossible, but even that hasn’t solved the problem. In January 2009, a jury at the Old Bailey (the Central Criminal Court) was ‘discharged from its deliberations’ after 27 hours because it couldn’t make up its mind about a £53 million robbery. Some police officials attribute this development to the soaring rate of ‘jury tampering’ and are concerned at the cost of over £5 million per annum to protect jurors (especially those sitting in criminal cases) from threats and bribes. In the opinion of Sir Igor Judge (President of the ‘Queen’s Bench Division’), the jury system cannot cope with trials ( such as those involving terrorism) lasting more than 14 months.
The Government has already attempted to pass laws abolishing juries in long and complex fraud trials or those involving serious drug crimes but this has so far been blocked by the House Of Lords. The Law Society President (Fiona Woolf) considers that these proposals represent “a misguided attack on the British justice system ” and that juries “provide a barrier against oppressive and politically motivated prosecutions”. Global attitudes towards jury trials vary considerably. India scrapped them in 1960 on the basis that they are too ‘susceptible to media and public influence”. Germany and Italy operate an adapted version whereby ‘laymen’ can sit in court alongside professional judges. Israel doesn’t have them at all. China, South Korea and Japan, however, have been moving in the opposite direction, appointing more juries or ‘assessors’ as a way of enhancing the integrity of their judicial systems.
In England & Wales there appears to be little support for changing the current arrangement, despite the considerable inconvenience of being summoned for jury service. This happens every year to around 480,000 people who are on the British electoral register and aged between 18 and 70. They are required to turn up in court on the specified date unless they can provide an acceptable excuse such as academic exams, a pre-booked holiday or ill-health.. This will result in a deferral of jury service but not a permanent cancellation. Full exemptions are available only to professionals such as doctors, MP’s, lawyers and religious ministers plus anyone who has been in prison over the past ten years or has served on a jury during the past two. Employers are legally obliged to give their staff time off to perform jury duties but don’t have to pay them while they are not at work. Jurors instead have to submit a claim to the Court for their loss of earnings, their travel costs and food expenses.
Meanwhile, a Government survey has dispelled the myth that the middle-class devise methods of dodging jury service. In practice, it is the low-earners, the unemployed and pensioners who are under-represented – though not the ethnic minorities. According to the report, juries tend to fairly reflect the cultural composition of the areas where the courts are located. There is a strict prohibition on revealing to outsiders (including the press) what was discussed in the jury-room – even after the trial has finished. Breaking this rule constitutes contempt of court. A six-week fraud case at Southwark Crown Court had to be abandoned ( at a cost of £500,000 to the tax-payer) after it emerged that a member of the jury had sought the opinion of her husband. On another highly-publicised occasion, a juror was discovered listening to an MP3 hidden under her hijab (headscarf) during a murder trial. She was dismissed, arrested and her music player confiscated.