Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T08:41:39.221Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Jury vetting — The jury under attack

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Peter Duff  and
Mark Findlay
Peter Duff
Affiliation:
University of Aberdeen
Mark Findlay
Affiliation:
Mitchell College, New South Wales
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The English jury has recently been undergoing various alterations. These changes have their roots in assumptions, often not clearly identified, about the nature and purpose of the jury within the criminal justice system. Once the purpose and ideals of the jury system are identified, and there may be arguments about what they are, it becomes apparent that there may be a conflict about how they should be put into practice. The state and its agencies may take one view whilst others may differ. An example of one such conflict is the controversy over the newly discovered practice of ‘jury vetting’.

Type
Research Article
Information
Legal Studies , Volume 3 , Issue 2 , July 1983 , pp. 159 - 173
Copyright
Copyright © Society of Legal Scholars 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. For a discussion of this point see Marshall, G. ‘The Judgement of One's Peers’ in The British Jury System, Cropwood Conference (Institute of Criminology, Cambridge, 1975) pp. 1–9 Google Scholar and Duff, P. and Findlay, M. ‘The Jury in England: Practice and Ideology’ (1982) 10 IJSL pp. 253–265 Google Scholar.

2. The types of trial were — Terrorists (IRA) 12, Official Secrets 2, Murder 4, Armed Robbery 5, International Fraud 2. See New Society, 19 October 1978, p. 127.

3. The Times, 11 October 1978.

4. At present the accused has three. S. 43 Criminal Law Act 1977.

5. These guidelines and the Attorney General's statement were published in The Times, 11 October 1978.

6. It is interesting to note that fear of pressure from ‘professional criminals’ was one of the central supports in the argument of those in Parliament who successfully promoted the introduction of the majority verdict in England and Wales.

7. The Times, 2 August 1980.

8. See Kettle, M. ‘Note on Jury Vetting’ New Society, 27 September 1979 Google Scholar.

9. Thompson, E. The State versus its “Enemies”’ New Society, 19 October, 1978 Google Scholar.

10. The quoted terminology emanates either from the Attorney General's statement or from circulars from the DPP.

11. Op. cit.

12. The Times, 22 February 1980.

13. The Times, 26 February 1980.

14. The Times, 11 March 1980.

15. [1980] 3 WLR 617.

16. Kettle op. cit.

17. [1980] 2 WLR 892.

18. See G. Marshall op. cit.; P. Duff and M. Findlay op. cit.

19. See Kalven, H. and Zeisel, H. The American Jury (Little, Brown & Co, Boston, 1966)Google Scholar.

20. Devlin, P. Trial by Jury (Stevens, London, 1966) p. 164 Google Scholar.

21. For an account of the jury's role as ‘the bulwark of liberty’ see Cornish, W. The Jury (Allen Lane, London, 1968) Ch. 5Google Scholar.

22. This is distorted to an extent by each accused's three peremptory challenges and the exemptions and disqualifications under the Juries Act 1974.

23. Cmnd. 2627 (HMSO, London, 1965).

24. SirHavers, Michael Justifying vetting; The Times, 2 August, 1980 Google Scholar.

25. The Times, 7 December 1979.

26. Reported in The Times, 15 March 1980.

27. See post.

28. Denning, Lord What Next in the Law? (Buttenvorths, London, 1982) p. 77 Google Scholar.

29. The Times, 2 September 1980.

30. The Times, 15 March 1980.

31. Supra n. 17.

34. Re the Courts Act 1971, s. 10(1), (5).

33. op. cit. p. 900.

34. Op. cit. p. 902.

35. Op. cit. p. 903.

36. Op. cit. p. 904.

37. Op. cit. p. 895.

38. Supra, n. 15.

39. Op. cit. p. 622.

40. Op. cit. p. 625.

41. (1857) 8 E & B 54. For a full discussion of the history of the Crown's right of stand by see McEldowney, J. ‘Stand by for the Crown — An Historical Analysis’ (1979) Crim LR pp. 272–283 Google Scholar.

42. 33 Edw I Stat 4.

43. Juries Act, s. 29.

44. Mason, at 626.

45. Ibid. at 625.

46. For a full account see Cornish op. cit.

47. Lord Stonham, Joint Parliamentary Undersecretary of State for the Home Office. Parliamentary Debates (HL), Vol 283 p. 330.

48. Devlin, P. op. cit. p. 20 Google Scholar.

49. See e.g. R., Mark, The 1973 Dimbleby Lecture (BBC Publication, London, 1973)Google Scholar.

50. See Packer, H. The Lirnifs of the Criminal Sanction (Stanford University Press, Standford, 1968)Google Scholar. Packer contrasts the ‘crime control’ model of justice with the ‘due process’ model.

51. Criminal Law Act 1977.

52. See Packer, H. op. cit., Skolnick, J. Jurtice Without Trial (Wiley, New York, 1966)Google ScholarPubMed.

53. See E. Thomson op. cit.