Over the years, the role and the responsibility of the jury have been through numerous transformations, hence these improvements made the presence of jury trials a highly controversial topic, leading to the question ‘Are juries needed in the English legal system?’. This essay aims to argue this question from different perspectives. It will first describe the evolution of the jury system and their current role in UK justice. Then, it will go through to analyse the advantages and disadvantages of having such a system using relevant cases. Lastly, it will mention the alternatives for the jury system and conclude by providing an answer to the question mentioned above.
Juries who are now regarded as one of the most fundamental part of the English …show more content…
Unlike the judges, a jury does not have to follow the acts of the Parliament. This is referred to as ‘Jury Equity’. The secrecy of the jury room supports the idea of ‘Jury Equity’ a lot as the jury is protected from outside influences as well as harassment and thus, can give verdicts that may be different from the precedents of past cases. For instance, in the case of R v Ponting, a Ministry of Defence official Clive Ponting was charged with leaking information to an MP, which concerned the sinking of an Argentinian cruiser during the Falklands conflict. During the case, the trial judge made it clear that the defendant should be condemned under the Official Secret Act 1920. However, the jury believed that Ponting should not be found guilty, giving no legal defence. As a result, Clive Ponting walked free from the court without getting any convictions. The case is currently counted as one of the wins of the jury system because a not guilty verdict was reached despite the opinion of the trial …show more content…
Unlike general bias, racial bias develops over a long time. Therefore, the idea of racism cannot be eliminated from a juror’s mind just in one day. The random selection of the jury makes the issue even harder as it is impossible to tell just by looking at whether someone has racial prejudice or not. Over the years, there has been a considerable number of different cases showing signs of racism. One of the most famous cases related to this matter is Gregory v UK. In the case, the black applicant David Gregory was being convicted for robbery. While the negotiations of the jury were continuing, a note was given to the trial judge saying a member of the jury is showing racial overtones and needs to be dismissed. In turn, the judge guided the jury to reach a verdict without involving any racial bias but only by considering the evidences presented to them. Thus, the jurors sentenced Mr. Gregory to six years of prison sentence. Afterwards, Mr. Gregory applied to the European Court of Human Rights with the complaint that there was a breach of Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 6.1 of the Convention states that everyone has the right to a fair hearing. However, the judge dissented the claim as there weren’t any evidence showing a subjective bias by the jury. A similar scenario took
Juries who are now regarded as one of the most fundamental part of the English …show more content…
Unlike the judges, a jury does not have to follow the acts of the Parliament. This is referred to as ‘Jury Equity’. The secrecy of the jury room supports the idea of ‘Jury Equity’ a lot as the jury is protected from outside influences as well as harassment and thus, can give verdicts that may be different from the precedents of past cases. For instance, in the case of R v Ponting, a Ministry of Defence official Clive Ponting was charged with leaking information to an MP, which concerned the sinking of an Argentinian cruiser during the Falklands conflict. During the case, the trial judge made it clear that the defendant should be condemned under the Official Secret Act 1920. However, the jury believed that Ponting should not be found guilty, giving no legal defence. As a result, Clive Ponting walked free from the court without getting any convictions. The case is currently counted as one of the wins of the jury system because a not guilty verdict was reached despite the opinion of the trial …show more content…
Unlike general bias, racial bias develops over a long time. Therefore, the idea of racism cannot be eliminated from a juror’s mind just in one day. The random selection of the jury makes the issue even harder as it is impossible to tell just by looking at whether someone has racial prejudice or not. Over the years, there has been a considerable number of different cases showing signs of racism. One of the most famous cases related to this matter is Gregory v UK. In the case, the black applicant David Gregory was being convicted for robbery. While the negotiations of the jury were continuing, a note was given to the trial judge saying a member of the jury is showing racial overtones and needs to be dismissed. In turn, the judge guided the jury to reach a verdict without involving any racial bias but only by considering the evidences presented to them. Thus, the jurors sentenced Mr. Gregory to six years of prison sentence. Afterwards, Mr. Gregory applied to the European Court of Human Rights with the complaint that there was a breach of Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 6.1 of the Convention states that everyone has the right to a fair hearing. However, the judge dissented the claim as there weren’t any evidence showing a subjective bias by the jury. A similar scenario took