Skip to main content.

What is the Jury for?

What is the purpose of having juries? Would it not be simpler cheaper and quicker for judges, who after all are lawyers, to try cases? That is what happens in virtually every civil dispute (apart from certain exceptions such as defamation, popularly known as libel and slander, and false imprisonment).

You may have read in various newspapers the jury being described as the "bulwark of civil liberties", without necessarily any particularly clear explanation as to why that should be so.

Even now you cannot automatically have a jury if you were charged with an offence. Offences fall into three categories. Summary only, indictable only, and "either way". In the first you cannot have a jury trial. If for example you are charged with driving with excess alcohol, or speeding, or common assault, you will have to be tried by magistrates whether you like it or not. Some cases you could not be tried by magistrates even if you wanted to be (e.g. murder), but many cases you have an option to be tried by a jury. In those circumstances you "elect" your right to be tried by a jury, if that is what you want.

There are all sorts of ongoing steps to restrict jury trials, particularly in fraud cases, usually on the basis that it is all too complicated for the juries to understand. There have also been occasions when jury trials have been dispensed with. In Northern Ireland during the Troubles, due to the difficulties inherent in the situation the so-called "Diplock" courts sat with judge alone.

We have considered recently the differences between the United States practice and here. However, whatever reservations lawyers here might have about the different approach there, jury trial seems to thrive there. It is still there in civil cases, and in criminal ones. Unless it is suggested that United States jurors are intrinsically brighter than British ones, that may give pause for thought about the suggestion that fraud trials are too difficult for juries. United States juries routinely deal with such matters. Of course the very different selection procedure may ensure that jurors who feel they will not be able to understand are excluded, but it is still a selection of the public.

The jury system is thought to be important for three reasons. Firstly it means that ordinary people, not just lawyers, are involved in the judicial process of deciding whether people have committed crimes or not. The judicial process should not be something distinct from the people, it should be something that people feel part of. This should improve confidence in the system both on behalf of the public and the defendants.

Secondly juries will usually be coming to matters afresh. Professional judges have heard it all before. It is all too easy to be cynical about excuses that you have heard many times before. The jury starts with a clean slate. Whilst that may sometimes lead to the guilty being acquitted, it should importantly mean that the innocent should always have their story listened to on its merits. Most involved in the law would say that whilst it is vitally important to convict the guilty, it is even more important to try and ensure that you do not convict the innocent.

Thirdly juries are ordinary people not appointed by the State. When laws become oppressive and unjust, it is easier for a jury to reach a commonsense conclusion than it is for a judge, who has to explain and give reasons for his decision. Although juries must decide cases in accordance with the law, in hard circumstances they can decide them in accordance with what they think the position ought to be. Let us imagine that there was a law that made it illegal to have more than one child, and illegal to attempt to prevent officials from "terminating" any second child born. I doubt that many juries would convict anyone charged with such offence, however clear the evidence. The judge would find it rather more difficult. Although an extreme example, this illustrates why the jury system is felt to be not just an opportunity for ordinary people to take part in the system, but a safeguard for them as well.

Michael J. Booth QC