AC 2.5 Discuss the use of lay people in criminal cases
Laypeople do not have any legal knowledge, and are ordinary members of the general
public. Laypeople can either serve as juries or magistrates
Juries
In the crown court, juries sit in the jury box, and they decide the verdict. They will listen to the
evidence put forward by the defence and prosecution and discuss the case afterwards to
come to a verdict. The judge will advise the jury on any legal knowledge, and during the trial
the jury are allowed to take notes. When deliberating outside of the courtroom, they must
decide on whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty, and must come to a decision ‘beyond
all reasonable doubt’. Their decision making is completely confidential and should not be
shared with anyone, and the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 makes it illegal to
question a jury’s verdict. Juries are only allowed to disclose information about their
deliberation if there has been misconduct reported by other jurors. Jury’s are randomly
selected from the general public, and are selected from the names of the electoral register.
Jurors will revive a letter summoning them to court, which will normally last for about two
weeks. There are some set guidelines created by the Juries Act 1974 and Criminal Justice
Act 2003 to be eligible for jury service which include: being 18 to 75 years old, being a UK
citizen and having resided in the UK for five years. Some people may not qualify for jury
service due to some factors including: those on bail, people who have had a five year or
more prison sentence, and anyone who has received a shooter sentence. Some people may
be exempt from jury service for reasons such as medical grounds, holidays that have been
paid for, looking after someone in care, etc.
One strength of using juries is that the jury is not bound by the law and can make their own
decisions on the verdict with jury equity. Jury equity is where a jury will decide on a case
differently to the law, often on the grounds of making the trial verdict more morally right and
fair. A case in which jury equity was applied was the case of Kay Gilderdale. Kay Gilderdale
was charged with manslaughter after the death of her daughter. Her daughter had an
ongoing serious ill condition, and had previously tried to kill herself. Kay was able to give her
daughter drugs which later killed her. The defence had charged her with manslaughter,
however the jury acquitted her as they felt that this was morally the right thing to do. Another
strength of using juries ensure that trials are fair and ensure that there is impartiality. This is
due to the fact that the jury is made up of people, and they are able to make their own
human judgements themselves. Furthermore, a jury is changed every two weeks to ensure
that jurors are randomly selected each time, making it more fair. It ensures that there is
another voice in the courtroom, not just the judge. Another strength of using juries is that jury
deliberations and matters are done in secret, and the information and conversations of jurors
is not known to the general public. The secrecy of jury deliberations makes sure that they
are not influenced by outside pressures, and ensures that their verdicts are just and fair.
Furthermore, the secrecy of the jury protects the jurors if they were to decide a verdict that
was unpopular with the public, and also ensures that jurors may be more willing to serve due
to it being out of the public eye. Another strength is that juries ensure that ordinary members
of the public are able to use their voice to deliberate on certain issues and crimes. They do
not have any specific legal knowledge, but the jury acts a democratic tool to ensure that
trials are more fair and just.
