In the legal jurisdiction of England and Wales, there is a long tradition of jury trial that has evolved over centuries. Under present-day practice, juries are generally summoned for criminal trials in the Crown Court where the offence is an indictable offence or an offence triable either way. All common law civil cases were tried by jury until the introduction of juryless trials in the new county courts in 1846, and thereafter the use of juries in civil cases steadily declined. Liability to be called upon for jury service is covered by the Juries Act 1974.
History
The English jury has its roots in two institutions that date from before the Norman Conquest in 1066. The inquest, as a means of settling a fact, had developed in Scandinavia and the Carolingian Empire while Anglo-Saxon law had used a "jury of accusation" to establish the strength of the allegation against a criminal suspect. In the latter case, the jury were not triers of fact and, if the accusation was seen as posing a case to answer, guilt or innocence were established by oath, often in the form of compurgation, or trial by ordeal. During the 11th and 12th centuries, juries were sworn to decide property disputes but it was the Roman Catholic Church's withdrawal of support for trial by ordeal in 1215 that necessitated the development of the jury in its modern form.Baker (2002) p.72-73
The jury had always been a socially exclusive institution, and historically people had to own land of a particular value in order to qualify. Until 1919, women were automatically disqualified from serving on trial juries, and even after that date local prejudices had the effect of keeping women off the jury. Few women satisfied the property qualifications until they were abolished in the 1970s, and this also heavily restricted the number of women eligible for jury service.
Criminal juries Juries are summoned for criminal trials in the Crown Court where the offence is an indictable offence or an offence triable either way that has been sent to the Crown Court after examination by magistrates.Sprack (2006) 18.01 Magistrates have the power to send any offence triable either way to the Crown Court but, even if they elect to try the case themselves, the accused retains the right to elect for a Crown Court trial with a jury.Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, s.20 Summary offences are tried by magistrates and there is no right of Crown Court trial by jury. During the 21st century some exceptions to jury trial in the Crown Court have been developed.Halsbury's Laws of England Vol.11(3) 1283. When juries are required
Trial without a jury Crown Court trial without a jury is permitted in cases of suspected jury tampering where there is evidence of a "real and present danger" and, despite the possibility of police protection, there is a substantial likelihood of tampering, and a trial without a jury is in the interests of justice.Criminal Justice Act 2003, s.44; Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Commencement No 13 and Transitional Provision) Order 2006, SI2006/1835, art.2(b), as of 24 July 2006 The first such prosecution application was made in February 2008. The first criminal trial in a crown court without a jury was approved in 2009.
There are also provisions under the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004, ss.17–20 to try defendants accused of domestic violence on sample counts and, on conviction, for the remainder of the counts to be tried by a judge alone. These provisions came into force on 8 January 2007.Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 (Commencement No 7 and Transitional Provision) Order 2006, SI2006/3423
If the defendant pleads autrefois (i.e. claims that he has already been acquitted or convicted of the offences charged), the judge now decides the matter without a jury.Criminal Justice Act 1988, s.122
Between 1973 and 2007 trials in Northern Ireland could be held without a jury in special courts known as Diplock courts.
Majority verdicts Majority verdicts have been allowed in England and Wales since the Criminal Justice Act 1967. Before this all criminal convictions required a unanimous verdict. The exact majority required depends on the number of jurors, and failure to reach this threshold may lead to a retrial. The judge should press the jury for a unanimous verdict. In the Crown Court the judge must not, in any event, suggest that a majority is acceptable until after 2 hours and 10 minutes. This was originally 2 hours but it was extended to allow time for the jury to settle after retiring.Sprack (2006) 21.34-21.37 In practice the majority verdict direction is often given after much longer than the minimum two hours required.
When the jury is called to deliver a verdict after majority directions have been given, a careful protocol of questions is followed: only in the event of a guilty verdict is it asked whether all jurors were agreed on that verdict, to prevent any acquittal from being tainted by it being disclosed that any jurors dissented. The protocol is followed separately for each charge. Majority verdicts are treated the same as unanimous ones, for example they are not taken as a mitigating factor during sentencing.
Inquests A senior coroner may hear an inquest without a jury unless the senior coroner has reason to suspect that the death occurred in custody or otherwise in state detention and that either the cause of death was a violent or unnatural one or the cause of death is unknown; or the death resulted from the act or omission of a police officer or a member of a service police force, in the purported execution of the officer's or member's duty as such; or that the death was caused by a notifiable accident, poisoning or disease, as defined in the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. An inquest into a death may be held with a jury if the senior coroner thinks that there is sufficient reason for doing so.Coroners and Justice Act 2009, s.7
Civil juries All common law civil cases were tried by jury up to the introduction of juryless trials in the new county courts in 1846. The perceived success of this system, together with increasing recognition of the integrity of judges and the professionalisation of legal institutions, meant that, when the Common Law Procedure Act 1854 gave litigants in the Queen's Bench the option of trial by judge alone, there was a steady uptake.Hanly (2005)Ward v. James 1 QB 273, CA at 290 per Lord Denning Over the next eighty years, the use of juries in civil trials steadily declined.Ford v. Blurton (1922) 38 TLR 801, CA
In 1933 the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1933, s.6Repealed by Supreme Court Act 1981, s. 152(4), Sch.7 guaranteed the right of jury trial in the Queen's Bench Division for:
Fraud, still guaranteed by County Courts Act 1984, s.66 and Supreme Court Act 1981, s.69. Libel Slander Malicious prosecution
False imprisonment Seduction Breach of promise of marriage
The 1933 Act also provided that: "but, save as aforesaid, any action to be tried in that Division may, in the discretion of the court or a judge, be ordered to be tried either with or without a jury." The Act brought a de facto end to civil jury trials in England and Wales save for the causes where the right was guaranteed.
In Ward v James,Ward v James 1 QB 273, CA Lord Denning, delivering the judgment of the Court of Appeal, held that personal injury cases were unsuitable for jury trials owing to the technical expertise and experience needed in assessing damages. In Singh v. London Underground Ltd (1990),The Independent, 26 April 1990 a litigant sought a jury trial on a case arising from the King's Cross fire but was refused owing to the technical nature of the case. In 1993, in Rantzen v Mirror Group Newspapers (1986) Ltd and others it was held that judges could substitute awards by juries in civil cases on appeal if they are deemed to be excessive. In 1998, fewer than 1% of civil trials in England and Wales were jury trials, and these were principally defamation cases.
Subsequently, the tort of breach of promise of marriage was abolished in England and Wales in 1971 by section 1, and the tort of seduction abolished by section 5 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1970.
Section 69 of the Senior Courts Act 1981, which replaced section 6 of the 1933 Act in respect of High Court trials, provides that trial shall be by jury on the application of a party where the court is satisfied that there is in issue: a claim of fraud against the party; or a claim in respect of libel, slander, malicious prosecution or false imprisonment unless the court is of the opinion that the trial requires any prolonged examination of documents or accounts or any scientific or local investigation which cannot conveniently be made with a jury.
Libel and slander were removed from section 69 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 by section 11 of the Defamation Act 2013, meaning that defamation claims made on or after 1 January 2014 are heard without a jury unless the judge orders otherwise.
As such, as of 2021, only fraud, malicious prosecution, and false imprisonment still carry the automatic right of a jury trial.
Number of jurors + Number of jurors in England and Wales Court At start of trial Minimum numberremaining Majorities allowed Source High Court129With 12 jurors: 11-1, 10-2With 11 jurors: 10-1With 10 jurors: 9-1With 9 jurors: the verdict must be unanimous.Juries Act 1974, s.17 Crown Court County Court 8 7 With 8 jurors: 7-1With 7 jurors: the verdict must be unanimous. County Courts Act 1984, s.66; Juries Act 1974, s.17(2) Coroner's Court Between 7 and 11 Minority no more than 2 Coroners Act 1988, s.8(2)(a), s.12
Since 1925 a jury has been able to continue hearing a case after a member has died or been discharged. Now the trial can continue so long as the minimum number of jurors remain. During the Second World War, the Administration of Justice (Emergency Provisions) Act 1939 authorised trials with only 7 jurors, except for treason or murder.1939 c.78, section 7(1).
Eligibility for jury service A jury panel is summoned from those who meet all of the following criteria:Juries Act 1974, s.1, as amended by Criminal Justice Act 2003 s.321/ Sch.33 British, Irish, Commonwealth and European Union citizens on the parliamentary or local government Electoral Register; aged 18 to 75 (although people aged over 70 can ask to be excused from serving); ordinarily resident in the UK, Channel Islands or the Isle of Man for any period of at least 5 years since the age of 13; and not disqualified for whatever reason.
Those who are liable to be detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 or who lack mental capacity are disqualified.
Persons currently on bail are disqualified. Persons are disqualified for life if they have been sentenced to: A life sentence; Detention for public protection; An extended sentence; or Imprisonment or detention for 5 years or more.
Persons are disqualified for 10 years after: Sentence, or suspended sentence of imprisonment or detention (less than 5 years); or Community punishments or treatment orders. Persons "not capable of acting effectively as a juror" may be discharged by the judge.
People are excused from jury service if:
they are currently a resident in a hospital or other similar institution, due to attend a hospital appointment or operation or recovering from an operation; they regularly visit a medical practitioner for treatment; they are in guardianship under section 7 of the Mental Health Act 1983; a judge has decided they are not capable of managing and administering property or affairs because of mental disorder/mental health problem;https://www.direct.gov.uk/en/DisabledPeople/RightsAndObligations/GoingToCourt/DG_4018635 Exemptions from jury service. other medical reasons preclude their service. Medical certificates are only required if the Jury Central Summoning Bureau asks for one;