ARE JURIES AS FAIR AS THEY COULD BE?

17. Feb. 2010. – 12:49:26 
The Document recently published  "Are Juries Fair?" has quite correctly had massive exposure in the media. A justice system in which everyone has confidence is  essential to maintain our current liberties reduced as they have been in the last thirteen years.

A purpose of any justice system is to punish the guilty and acquit those against whom the evidence cannot sustain a guilty verdict. That definition in itself does not constitute a guarantee of a free and just society or a society governed by law as we in this country would have it. According to their legal systems at the time the USSR and nazi Germany punished the guilty and occasionally acquitted others.

By the Juries Act 1974 the only requirement to serve on a jury is to be listed in the electoral roll. And laterally the exclusion of those involved in various professions has been lifted so that even legally qualified professionals no longer have exemption.
The document runs to 87 pages so my comments here are necessarily compressed.

As the title implies the main concern is with outcomes and especially with consideration for the effect of ethnic minority groups both as jurers and defendants. There is little consideration apart from race and religion on the composition of juries or alternatives to the jury. Presumably these factors were not in the authors` remit but in my opinion when considering the title of the paper it is self restricting insofar as the concept of "fair" is being examined with a macro lens instead of a wide angle.

There are conclusions which prompt considerable disquiet. Non fatal offences against the person have a 52% conviction rate. And in offences where understanding the state of mind of the defendant is crucial the conviction rate is less than 50%. These examples require a juror to have a certain level of insight, to be able to reason, to be able to draw conclusions in addition to being satisfied "on the facts". In efforts to be representative no investigations are possible into a juror`s understanding of English language whether oral or written. Is this faculty not worthy of being a pre-requisite for sitting in judgement over one`s fellow man? Twelve is not a magic number for a jury panel. If two juries of seven each were to sit on a case with both having to bring in the same majority verdict would that not ensure "fairness" if a split between the two would indicate a re-trial or acquittal? Since the removal of the either way category of offences is not on the horizon is there not a case on the same basis for a defendant to elect Judge or Judges only trial for very limited range of offences? The jury system is far from infallible as can be demonstrated by very high profile cases in the last decade of verdicts successfully appealed.

Our criminal justice system allows District Judges to sit as both judge and jury at Magistrates` Courts trials. Magistrates sit as three person judge and juries on the vast majority of trials in England. They would not be appointed with poor language or reasoning skills. In addition both JPs and DJs must give reasons for trial verdicts; juries do not.
This study certainly provides food for thought but in my opinion cannot deliver a verdict because so much was excluded. Without more information and input I am not convinced that we are doing as much as we can to ensure the prime directive; to punish the guilty and acquit those against whom the evidence cannot sustain a guilty verdict.