CC TRIAL
The jury
who can serve
every person must attend or jury service when summoned if:
aged 18 - 70; AND
on the electoral roll; AND
ordinarily resident in UK for any period of at least 5 years since attaining age 13; AND
NOT ineligible due to mental disorder; AND
NOT disqualified due to pre-cons i.e. a person:
permanent disqualification:
life sentence
dangerous offender sentence / IPP
sentenced to 5+ years' UK custodial sentence
temporary disqualification
on bail at time called
UK custodial / suspended sentence in last 10 years (i.e. disqualified for 10 years)
community order in last 10 years (i.e. disqualified for 10 years)
excusal / deferral
no one can refuse jury service
BUT Jury Central Summoning Bureau (JCSB - administers jury system for CC) has discretion (on application of juror) to allow juror to:
be excused if
can show good reason (s9(2) Juries Act); OR
NOT capable of acting effectively as juror due to physical disability
seek deferral of summons (s9A1) e.g. holiday clash
regardless of whether already applied to JCSB, can also apply to court to be excused
potential bias
test = apparent bias: would a fair-minded and informed observer conclude that there was a real possibility of bias having regard to fact eligible and that any objection would be the subject of judicial decision? (Porter v Magill)
CPS employee in case prosecuted by CPS
serving police officer working in same area as police Ws in case
juror knows disputed W personally (i.e. W likely to give oral evidence)
juror is serving police officer AND knows W personally AND important conflict on police evidence
agreed W (even if police officer)
merely employed as prison officer in prison where D held (mere suspicion would know D's bad character)
CPS employee in case prosecuted by another pros authority
? serving police officers generally:
fair minded observer conclude partiality of juror to W may have caused jury to accept evidence of that W; AND
would fair minded observer consider that this may have affected outcome of trial?
how is biased determined?
case-by-case basis
judge asks Qs to juror (in court / in writing)
summoning for jury service
can be summoned to attend anywhere
BUT Lord Chancellor must have regard to convenience to jurors + desirability of selecting those who live within reasonable travelling service
LC simply picks from electoral roll duty to inform if ineligible / disqualified
panels of those summoned
LC preps lists of those summoned, in his discretion
empanelling the jury
number of potential jurors come into courtroom
clerk explains to D 12 names read will = jury
clerk selects 12 jury cards (name + address) + reads out names
those 12 go into the jury box
clerk tells D he has right to challenge jurors before sworn
clerk reads each name, after which juror swears oath
judge warns jury that they:
should try case on evidence + nothing else
must not discuss case outside court
should NOT conduct own private research, especially re: the internet (special emphasis, set out penal consequences)
warn of need to bring to judge's attention immediately if have any concerns about fellow jurors
challenging potential jurors
standby
procedure
as juror starts to take oath, pros says 'stand by'
judge explains juror cannot sit on that jury (but may be able to on another)
common reasons for standby
juror fails check
usually: PCN for pre-cons by pros
national security: thorough check by pros
if check positive, stand juror by
manifestly unsuitable to sit on particular jury + defence agrees e.g. can't read oath + case document heavy
who has power to stand a juror by?
only pros (NOT defence) + do NOT have to give reasons
judge (rare)
N.B. judge CANNOT use power to ensure racially balanced jury or otherwise interfere with random composition of jury
challenge for cause
use if suspect juror may be biased
challenge the polls (single juror) OR challenge the arraign (whole jury)
procedure
counsel says 'challenge' before juror takes oath
simple reason: counsel says in open court
complex reason: jury leave, counsel explains, juror may Q'd
determining bias
test: real possibility of bias Porter (see above)
no Q can be asked of juror unless challenging party has already established a prima facie case that person likely to be biased
adverse pre-trial publicity
juror should only be asked if read (+ if has, successfully challenged) in exceptional circumstances
NOT reason for stopping trial if possible to have fair trial
who has power to stand a juror by?
pros
defence
judge objects (discretion)
replacement of juror after successful challenge
replaced by member of jury in waiting
discharge of jurors
discharge of individual jurors during trial
up to 3 jurors can be discharged due to evident necessity (matter for judge) e.g. illness, juror has behaved contrary to oath
minimum number on jury = 9
if more than 3 jurors discharged trial must be abandoned in favour of fresh trial
discharge of entire jury
mechanism of discharge
judge has discretionary power
either side can invite making of order BUT judge can make even if both sides submit that it should NOT be made
global test = do the interests of justice require the jury to be discharged - are there real grounds for doubting ability of jury to bring objective judgment to bear?
effect of discharge
D NOT acquitted - can be retried
reasons for discharge
jury hears evidence that is inadmissible AND prejudicial to D
test = test for bias: would OR could continuing trial - by reason of admission of unfairly prejudicial material - result in an unfair conviction?
NOT automatic - discretion of trial judge
judge may simply direct jury to ignore inadmissible evidence
jury CANNOT agree on a verdict
individual juror discharged AND risk that juror contaminated rest of jury:
e.g. revealing inadmissible evidence
if juror has specialist knowledge of something relevant to case against D + communicates it to rest of jury must discharge jury (evidence unchallenged)
members of jury misbehave during trial
test = real danger of prejudice to D?
co-D (A) changes plea only if 'possible to point to particular unfairness resulting from B continuing to be tried by same jury'
Judge only trial if danger of jury tampering
the rule
can be tried by judge alone in cases where there is a danger of jury tampering (s44 CJA 2003)
= last resort - must be sure below criteria fulfilled
the procedure for judge only trial BEFORE START OF TRIAL
the application
pros make
must be made at a preparatory hearing
all parties must be given an opportunity to make representations
judge may only make order if:
satisfied real and present danger of jury tampering; AND
notwithstanding any steps which might reasonably taken to prevent jury tampering (including police protection) the likelihood that it would take place would be so substantial as to make it necessary in the interests of justice
examples of appropriate cases
retrial + jury in original trial discharged due to tampering
jury tampering has taken place in previous criminal proceedings involving D
attempted / actual intimidation of Ws (s44(6))
procedure for DISCHARGE DURING TRIAL of jury because of jury tampering
judge must allow parties opportunity to make representations
judge:
may order trial to continue without jury if:
satisfied jury tampering has taken place; AND
to continue without jury would be fair to D (s46(3))
------OR---------
must order that trial be terminated if necessary in the interests of justice (s46(4))
AND if Y judge may order any new trial be conducted without jury (s46(5))
domestic violence trials
on application of pros (must be at preparatory hearing), judge alone permitted to order trial of some - NOT all - counts on indictment if:
number of counts on indictment likely to mean trial by jury involving all counts impracticable; AND
each count / group of counts which would be tried with a jury can be regarded as a sample of counts which could be tried without a jury; AND
in interests of justice for order to be made
judge must have regard to steps which might reasonably facilitate trial by jury ( reasonable if D might get lesser sentence)
effect
D found G by jury on sample count other counts can be tried without jury
if D found G of other counts, judge must give reasons
Custody time limits - also in SGS 3 (bail)
definition
= max period D can be kept in custody whilst relevant preliminary stage of proceedings is being completed
complies with art 5(3) i.e. = 'trial within reasonable time / release pending trial'
preliminary stage
custody time limit ceases to operate at start of trial
start of trial =
point jury sworn / court accepts G plea (CC)
if there is a preparatory hearing, that is deemed to = start of trial (CC)
when court begins to hear pros evidence (unless re: hospital order) / accepts G plea (mags')
time limits
summary offences
between first appearance + summary trial - 56 days
either way offences
between first appearance + decide on summary trial within 56 days - 56 days
between first appearance + s51 sending - 70 days
between s51 sending to CC + start of trial - 182 days
indictable only offences
between s51 sending to CC + start of trial - 182 days
expiry / extension of time limits
on expiry, D must be released on bail (BUT see below)
on expiry, CPS / pros should:
apply for extension
Ds charged with homicide / rape...