10th April 2024
The law, juries and justice
In the UK laws are made by Parliament. The Parliamentary process should involve in-depth scrutiny and widespread consultation with those likely to be affected to ensure that laws are both fair and effective.
(I use the word ‘should’ because the reality at the moment is that often such scrutiny is lacking. The following comes from a Legal Action Group report: “Speaking at the annual Bingham Lecture, Lord Judge, who now sits in the House of Lords, observed that parliament produces around 3,000 pages of primary legislation a year, along with 12–13,000 pages of secondary legislation. Disturbingly, he expressed doubts about how much of this was even ‘read, just read’ by parliamentarians, ‘let alone scrutinised’.” https://www.lag.org.uk/article/201782/parliamentary-scrutiny-of-our-legislation-is-being-lost-to-misused-executive-power)
Once passed, the laws are enforced by the legal system, including the courts where the interpretation of the law can be explored.
The English legal system is renowned for it jury trials – trials where the defendant’s guilt or innocence is determined by twelve of their fellow citizens. The jury hears the evidence, for and against, and then retires to deliberate amongst themselves as to whether or not they think that the defendant is or is not guilty. At the outset each witness, including the defendant, swear that they will tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. This ensures that the jury has all the relevant evidence.
The role of the judge is to make sure that the case is conducted in accordance with the law. They use their knowledges and experience in interpreting the law, elucidating for the court what they believe the law says or means. The judge can also determine which evidence is relevant to the case and can therefore be heard in court. When the evidence has been heard, the jury – not the judge – gives the verdict of guilty or not guilty. In this way the democratic process is brought to bear upon the legal system: it is the decision of twelve randomly chosen fellow citizens who determine whether or naturally a law has been broken by the defendant. Having heard the juries’ verdict, the judge – of the defendant has been found guilty -determines the sentence that concludes the case. Again this is done within the guideline laid down by law.
Judges have to be impartial ensuring that everyone – defendants, witnesses and jurors, are treated equally and fairly.
Jurors too have to be impartial and must make their decisions about the case purely on the basis of the evidence that they hear whilst in court. They must not look for information elsewhere – be that via the internet, the media, friends or family etc. Rather they must only discuss the evidence they hear in court with – and only when all twelve are present – their fellow jurors. They must determine on each count whether or not the defendant is guilty or not guilty. Their decision must be one that reflects their joint thinking. Their decision is one of conscience based on the evidence that they have heard. Jurors do not – and indeed must not – explain what they discussed and how they have reached their decision.
At The Old Bailey there is a plaque beating the following text:
“Near this site William Penn and William Mead were tried in 1670 for preaching to an unlawful assembly in Grace Church Street. This tablet commemorates the courage and endurance of the jury, Thos Vere, Edward Bushell and ten others who refused to give a verdict against them although locked up without food for two nights and were fined for their final verdict of not guilty. The case of these jurymen was reviewed on a Writ of Habeas Corpus and Chief Justice Vaughan delivered the opinion of the Court which established”The Right of Juries” to give their verdict according to their convictions.”
It concerns a trial in which the jury was not willing to find the defendants, William Penn and William Mead, guilty. The judge then ruled that the jury must find defendants guilty. When they refused, the judge had them locked up without food and water for two days. When they still would not find the defendants guilty, the judge fined the jury members. Those who refused to pay were imprisoned. Edward Bushell appealed to a higher court that he was being unlawfully imprisoned. The Chief Justice released him and declared that jurors could only be punished if they behaved improperly and not because they came to a decision that did not suit the judge or appeared contri to the evidence.
This right that juries should convict according to their conscience is now the subject of debate, following the arrest of Trudi Warner – for holding up a placard bearing that same inscription as depicted on the plaque inside The Old Bailey – for contempt of court.
Not surprisingly there has been a strong reaction to this and a group called Defend Our Juries has been coordinating actions outside Crown Courts (where jury cases are heard) where individuals have become human billboards, sitting in silence outside the court holding a replica sign summarising the words from the Old Bailey.
For more information about these issues – https://defendourjuries.org/
The Green Tau 