Judicial Precedent
Advantages and Disadvantages of the jury system
Advantages of the Jury System
Long established trial by peers which has public confidence
Lord Devlin, a famous House of Lords judge, has said that trial by jury is the “lamp that shows that freedom lives”, arguing that a defendant has the right to be tried by his peers.
Supporters of this view maintain that a jury will exercise common sense rather than slavishly follow the law. For example the case of R v Wang W was charged with having an article with a blade or point in a public place, he was found with a Shaolin knife in his bag on a train station platform. His defence was he carried the knife to practice his Buddhist religion so evidence he owned the blade and therefore had committed the offence was beyond doubt. The judge directed the jury to find Wang guilty and the D appealed as a result. Wang argued that the jury should be allowed to decide on the evidence as to what a fair verdict was regardless of what the law says should be the outcome of the case. The appeal was allowed, the House of Lords agreeing with Wang and stating that no one is allowed to tell a jury to find a guilty verdict, including the judge. A jury only have to make a decision based on what it fair and common sense and as they are not paid by anyone such as the government, they are free from political interference and bias.
The fairness of an open trial
The Public also have confidence as the jury members are not trained and are trusted due to less professional involvement. 85% of those polled by the Bar Council in 2003 had confidence in jury verdicts showing that this system of delivering criminal justice is supported by a large section of society as being fair.
For example in R v Kronlid and Others (1996) a group of people were charged with criminal damage to a Hawk Fighter Plane. They did so because the plane was going to be sold to the Indonesian government, and there was a high risk that they would use it to carry out
Advantages of the Jury System
Long established trial by peers which has public confidence
Lord Devlin, a famous House of Lords judge, has said that trial by jury is the “lamp that shows that freedom lives”, arguing that a defendant has the right to be tried by his peers.
Supporters of this view maintain that a jury will exercise common sense rather than slavishly follow the law. For example the case of R v Wang W was charged with having an article with a blade or point in a public place, he was found with a Shaolin knife in his bag on a train station platform. His defence was he carried the knife to practice his Buddhist religion so evidence he owned the blade and therefore had committed the offence was beyond doubt. The judge directed the jury to find Wang guilty and the D appealed as a result. Wang argued that the jury should be allowed to decide on the evidence as to what a fair verdict was regardless of what the law says should be the outcome of the case. The appeal was allowed, the House of Lords agreeing with Wang and stating that no one is allowed to tell a jury to find a guilty verdict, including the judge. A jury only have to make a decision based on what it fair and common sense and as they are not paid by anyone such as the government, they are free from political interference and bias.
The fairness of an open trial
The Public also have confidence as the jury members are not trained and are trusted due to less professional involvement. 85% of those polled by the Bar Council in 2003 had confidence in jury verdicts showing that this system of delivering criminal justice is supported by a large section of society as being fair.
For example in R v Kronlid and Others (1996) a group of people were charged with criminal damage to a Hawk Fighter Plane. They did so because the plane was going to be sold to the Indonesian government, and there was a high risk that they would use it to carry out