The Impropriety of Jury and Maintaining Balance: A Study on Jury Secrecy and Reviewability

Introduction

The jury system is a crucial precept to the concept of a democracy state such as the UK , and by giving the public the opportunity to take part in the legal process such as criminal trials it protects the concept of a democracy country on one hand and it gives people the sense of power and  responsibility  to achieve justice towards their society when being  a part of the country’s machinery of justice on other hand. However, on some occasions the jury system could abuse the system and not follow the law accordingly.

this research paper focuses on the impropriety of jury and maintaining balance between competing demand of Secrecy and reviewability. (please paraphrase instead so I don’t lose marks) This paper also indicates the Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) . Thus, the objective of this study is to understand the impartiality formation of jury along with secrecy and reviewability with the help of Article 6.

The jury secrecy principles and the jury’s conduct are sets out by the common law rules as well as by statue rooting from 1787 to achieve justice in the British criminal trials. However, in recent years, there have been reports about the fairness of jury towards Black and Minority Ethnic (BME).After the formation of Jury impropriety, the discussion and decision became inviolable. It has been observed from this jury judgment few of the laws are challenged by the European convention under the Article 6 i.e. “Right to a Fair Trial”. The European Court of Justices (ECJ) has enforced a rule, which explains the existence of sufficient guarantees for excluding any objectively justified doubts for impartiality of the jury. It has also stressed that a jury should be impartial from the subjective and objectives point of view.

Discussion

The purpose of the jury secrecy rule in the justice system is to protects the jury from any harassment after a verdict is made and to prohibit any inconsistency in the final judgment in criminal trial yet the rule faced criticisms especially on the human rights Act 1998, it is debatable whether the jury secrecy principle limits the court to investigate allegation of jury impropriety is in accord with the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convection of Human Rights. The House of Lords believed that it does. The matter of jury impartiality and jury misconduct can be evidenced in the case of Mirza and Conner. In R v Mirza the defendant in this case was a black immigrant a juror notified his counsel that the verdict resulted from a racial bias, the second case of R.v Connor the accused was found guilty by following a majority verdict and after the trail one of the jury member sent a letter to the judge explaining the impropriety deliberation prosses that happened between the jury, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal claiming that there unsure of the accuracy of the letter sent by one of the juror.(footnote)

In the year 2004, after the case of Mirza and Connor the House of Lords took into consideration the matter of jury secrecy for the first time and identified the extent under section 8 of the enforcement of Court Act 1981. It also aims to assure the confidently of the jury deliberation in trails, the section 8 of the Court Act also prohibits the judges to ask jurors questions relating to discussions at the time of making impropriety accusations. The court has repeated the established principle that the trial judge is solely allowed to investigate the issues impacting jury considerations.The effects of this law have significantly affected jury, this is due to the fact that unless the jury members bring concern regarding improper jury to the judge of the trial prior to the judgment is returned, it is hard to investigate such claims after enforcing judgments.

A case which is testimony of a breach of section 8 is in Attorney General v Scotcher. This case indicates that even if a juror breached section 8 of the contempt of the Court Act 1981 to prohibit any misconduct that would veto any unjust results would be entitled to a defence sine this rule conflicts with article 10 of the (ECHR) i.e. “right to freedom of expression” however, the House of Lords disagreed with this argument claiming that it will except any explanation or concerns of any miscarriages in a trial from a member of the jury before the final verdict. Thus, it was argued that there was no breach of section 8 rather it was compatible with article 10 of the ECHR in a way that will protects jury secrecy deliberations in the criminal justice system.