Case Report: Are Juries The Fairest Of Them All

‘Are Juries the "Fairest” of Them All?’

1. INTRODUCTION

In the journal titled “Law, Fact or Justice?” written by Professor Zuckerman, he has suggested the notion that “trust in the jury is secured by the fact that it applies standards of adjudication which are both generally familiar and widely accepted” . His reasoning was based on the fact that because juries command trust in the community, therefore, they are in the position to administer adjudication on the merits. This assumption may be justified owing to the fact that trial by jury has been practiced for hundreds of centuries in Britain. Consequently, it has customarily been accepted as the cornerstone of democracy and bedrock to fair trials in the English legal system. However, in

After a hearing, the judge will assist the jury by providing a brief summary of the facts of the case and guidance on applicable laws. Following that, the jury will then retire to consider their verdict in private. It is important to note that in reaching a verdict, the jury is only eligible to take into account materials or evidence that was introduced in court.

Under the modern criminal system, juries sit in a group of 12 and are only entitled to take part in cases heard in the Crown Court where they decide a defendant’s guilt. On a side note, under the civil system, juries may be used to determine the liability of a defendant and amount of damages to be awarded. Although juries are hardly use in civil courts, they can be used in the High Court (Queen’s Bench Division) where they sit in a group of 12, or in the County Court, in a group 8 to hear cases on defamation, malicious prosecution and false imprisonment. In some instances, juries may also sit in groups of 7 to 11 in the Coroner’s Court to determine a person’s cause of