Saturday 18 October, 16.00 until 17.15, Pit Theatre, Barbican Legal Challenges
Most people value trial by jury and see it as a cornerstone of Western justice, epitomised by the popular film, Twelve Angry Men. Yet the jury system is often questioned by politicians, judges, victims and lawyers. When the jury failed to reach a verdict in the case of Vicky Pryce in 2013, the judge said the jurors had displayed a ‘fundamental deficit in understanding’ after repeatedly asking questions that became a source of popular ridicule. Meanwhile, with the discovery that jurors and lawyers were routinely conducting online research in contempt of court, the then attorney-general, Dominic Grieve, issued a stark warning last year that ‘trial by Google’ threatened the principles of open justice by jury trial. And when an inquest jury found Mark Duggan’s killing at the hands of armed police was lawful, many outside the legal profession claimed the verdict was perverse.
After the collapse of the Pryce trial, one leading legal commentator queried whether we should ‘entrust the most serious criminal cases to the hands of unqualified lay people’. While most politicians and legal professionals publicly affirm a commitment to juries, there is growing support for judges and experts to take a greater role in proceedings. For example, the director of public prosecutions, Alison Saunders, has suggested jurors need special guidance on ‘rape myths’ to tackle falling conviction rates. The jury’s defenders maintain that it remains the best available method for ensuring justice and – as highlighted by reactions to the judge-led trial of Oscar Pistorius in South Africa – the jury system remains popular with the public. It is argued that criticism of juries is driven more by attempts to excuse the justice system’s internal failings than any profound crisis of then jury system itself.
Are juries falling out of favour because judges are seen as more reliable decision takers? Is the jury a model for citizen empowerment or a recipe for trial by ill-informed public opinion? Does the ‘middle-class flight’ from jury service – with busy professionals seeking exemptions – amount to citizens voting with their feet against the principle of jury trial? Are there some cases where trial by jury is simply impossible? Is the argument in defence of juries as strong as in the past?
Watch the debate:
Listen to the debate:
Carl Gardner
barrister; law blogger, headoflegal.com |
|
Luke Gittos
criminal lawyer; director of City of London Appeals Clinic; legal editor at spiked; author, Why Rape Culture is a Dangerous Myth: From Steubenville to Ched Evans |
|
Andrew Wheelhouse
senior paralegal, Bates Wells Braithwaite LLP |
|
Asha Shah
paralegal, Financial Ombudsman Service |