The Jury Selection Procedure in the English Legal System

The Jury Selection Procedure in the English Legal System The theory behind modern day trial by jury can be traced back some

eight hundred years, to the sixty-three clauses of the Magna Carta

(1215). One of these clauses reads; “ No free man shall be arrested,

or imprisoned, or deprived of his property, or outlawed, or exiled, or

in any way destroyed, nor shall we go against him or send him against,

unless by legal judgement of his peers, or by the law of the land.”

The Magna Carta gave English nobles and freemen the right to trial

via a panel of their peers. In addition, the concept could also have

stemmed from Normandy (pre 1066) when a panel of adjudicators was

customary to decide land disputes. Many ancient cultures, such as the

Ancient Judea, had similar philosophies. The independence of the jury

from the judge was established in Bushell’s case (1670). A judge’s

role is ‘master of law’. He is responsible for interpreting the law in

the case, enforcing the law, deciding the sentence and passing it,

guiding the jury and avoiding bias at all costs. Whereas, the jury is

‘master of fact’ and is the sole decider of innocence or guilt. A

judge is forbidden from participating in the decision-making

process.

In part A of this essay, I will describe the jury selection procedure

as it stands in the English Legal System. In part B, I will consider

alternatives, suggest improvements to jury selection procedure, and

discuss how representative it is of English society.

PART A

The method of jury selection in the English legal system is for a

compute...

... middle of paper ...

...only on criteria of reasonable doubt.

It would be reasonable to conclude twelve independent thinkers will

always be more objective.

Abolishing juries altogether and instead using three judges would

obviously mean that England would need to appoint many more judges. In

turn this would mean that many of the arguments that apply to judge

appointment would apply three fold! Also, one could argue that it is

inevitable ‘The Peter Principal’ would apply.

I would therefore conclude that by reviewing and increasing the

criteria used in the jury selection process, and reviewing and

decreasing the criteria used to exclude people from eligibility, trial

by jury would be the most objective, unprejudiced and representative

form of trial available.

References:

lawteacher.net

thismoney.co.uk

Wikipedia.com