Criminal Trials Within The English Criminal Justice System
The concept of criminal trials within the English criminal justice system originates from the 12th century. The development of English common law established by King Henry II and culminated with the Constitutional signing of the Magna Carta 1215. Chapter thirty nine stipulates that no man shall be imprisoned without lawful judgement of his peers. This essay will begin with a quote by Lord Devlin in 1956. “The lamp which shows that freedom lives” and ““Each jury is a little parliament”.
Trial by jury is more than administering justice, it is a constitutional right. It is the lynchpin that hold the executive in check from tyranny. The constitutional theorist Albert Venn Dicey stated that “Freedom of speech was more secure in Britain than anywhere …show more content…
Along with presiding judge jury trials have both defence and prosecution advocates. These are called Barristers. However the Access to Justice Act 1999 confirms the right to representation depends on fitness and qualification, and not a professional Barrister.
Our European partners have adopted the inquisitorial civil law system of justice. That is a group of judges investigate to determine the truth in any given case. There has been many attempts to adopt this within our common law jurisdiction and is not unique. In Northern Ireland the British Government introduced trials without juries called Diplock Courts in cases of terrorism with the possibility of jury tampering. Although technically abolished these courts still exist.
The overriding objectives of a jury panel is to analyse the evidence presented and prove beyond a reasonable doubt the Guilt of the accused.
Modern juries consist of twelve members of the public. The qualifying criteria is contained within the Juries Act 1974. These people are chosen at random from the electoral register and aged between eighteen and seventy to maintain impartiality. Exemption from jury service is dependent on Section 1(1) Criminal Justice Act 2003 and must be of ‘good reason’. Those reasons will be submitted to the Jury Central Summonsing Bureau for …show more content…
Jury members are forbidden to discuss the case with non-jury members until discharged by the court. This independence originates with the Bushel’s case (1670} 124 E R. The confidentiality of secret Jury deliberation in any open justice system satisfies Article 6(1) European Convention on Human Rights. Gregory v UK (1997) European Court Human Rights (ECtHR)
The presiding judge can only direct the court on points of law and not direct the jury to convict. The concept of difference between law and justice can be seen with R v Ponting [1985] Crim LR 318. The defendant was found not guilty under public interest even though guilty on the evidence presented. This is useful in that sometimes juries form an opinion that an individual should not be prosecuted by the state when acting for the public good.
Advocates in favour of restricting jury trials state the complexity of modern fraud trial carried out through electronic communications is simply beyond what a layperson can understand. The Maxwell brother’s fraud trial that collapsed in 1996 at a cost to the tax payer of twenty five million pounds is a prime
Trial by jury is more than administering justice, it is a constitutional right. It is the lynchpin that hold the executive in check from tyranny. The constitutional theorist Albert Venn Dicey stated that “Freedom of speech was more secure in Britain than anywhere …show more content…
Along with presiding judge jury trials have both defence and prosecution advocates. These are called Barristers. However the Access to Justice Act 1999 confirms the right to representation depends on fitness and qualification, and not a professional Barrister.
Our European partners have adopted the inquisitorial civil law system of justice. That is a group of judges investigate to determine the truth in any given case. There has been many attempts to adopt this within our common law jurisdiction and is not unique. In Northern Ireland the British Government introduced trials without juries called Diplock Courts in cases of terrorism with the possibility of jury tampering. Although technically abolished these courts still exist.
The overriding objectives of a jury panel is to analyse the evidence presented and prove beyond a reasonable doubt the Guilt of the accused.
Modern juries consist of twelve members of the public. The qualifying criteria is contained within the Juries Act 1974. These people are chosen at random from the electoral register and aged between eighteen and seventy to maintain impartiality. Exemption from jury service is dependent on Section 1(1) Criminal Justice Act 2003 and must be of ‘good reason’. Those reasons will be submitted to the Jury Central Summonsing Bureau for …show more content…
Jury members are forbidden to discuss the case with non-jury members until discharged by the court. This independence originates with the Bushel’s case (1670} 124 E R. The confidentiality of secret Jury deliberation in any open justice system satisfies Article 6(1) European Convention on Human Rights. Gregory v UK (1997) European Court Human Rights (ECtHR)
The presiding judge can only direct the court on points of law and not direct the jury to convict. The concept of difference between law and justice can be seen with R v Ponting [1985] Crim LR 318. The defendant was found not guilty under public interest even though guilty on the evidence presented. This is useful in that sometimes juries form an opinion that an individual should not be prosecuted by the state when acting for the public good.
Advocates in favour of restricting jury trials state the complexity of modern fraud trial carried out through electronic communications is simply beyond what a layperson can understand. The Maxwell brother’s fraud trial that collapsed in 1996 at a cost to the tax payer of twenty five million pounds is a prime