The principle of power separation is a universally accepted tool, ensuring that democratic values are preserved within a nation. Judiciary serves as an indispensable element of this system, as its objective is to confirm the legitimacy of all actions taken by other branches of the government. Accordingly, it plays a role of paramount importance in England and Wales, having received due recognition as a separate branch. The country’s judiciary pursues a noble goal of protecting people and the state against any violations of the existing law. However, controversial topics exist within this system, and one of them concerns the system of the jury in courts. The principle of a random selection of jurors has been an area of intense interest for researchers, as there are two polar points of view involved. Impartiality remains a crucial element of the judiciary, but external pressure, such as case participant personalities or status, may impair the jury’s independent thinking. The purpose of this essay is to explore the concept of judicial impartiality and the importance of random jury selection in England and Wales.
To serve its noble purpose, the judiciary must adhere to its primary principle. According to Breda, “the concept of judicial objectivity is a cornerstone of modern legal systems”, and this idea includes the United Kingdom, as well. The judiciary of England and Wales underwent major changes, following the adoption of The Constitutional Reform Act 2005. Among other aspects of legal work, this document lays additional emphasis on the independence of the system. The Act has established an independent Judicial Appointments Commission, which is responsible for selecting and recommending the best candidates for the positions of judges within the judiciary. The Commission’s principle is to remain impartial and transparent in terms of decision-making, ensuring that all positions are attributed based on merits exclusively.3 The main purpose of the aforementioned system is to guarantee an independent legal framework in England and Wales, which would protect the Constitutional order without pressure from other branches of the government.
While The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 rearranged the Judiciary of England and Wales to a substantial degree, there is one principle that has remained intact. According to the judiciary’s official statement, how judges work has been subject to change over centuries. Transparency, independence, and accountability form the pillars of the English judiciary, and these principles are crucial in any legal system. High-profile cases usually receive increased attention from the public, which tries to impose its point of view on judges, urging them to rule a specific, convenient verdict. According to the Lord Chief Justice, the judiciary has been under unprecedented pressure in the age of social media when every decision is scrutinized. In such a difficult environment, it may be challenging to approach matters with due impartiality. In a way, judges have become public figures, who cannot work in full isolation from outside pressure. Therefore, it falls upon the judiciary to provide conditions, in which impartiality is easier to maintain.
This principle of judicial independence is particularly important when judges work with difficult cases, which receive a lot of the public’s attention. The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 secures the judiciary’s independence by establishing a Judicial Complaints Investigations Office. In this regard, the Lord Chief Justice is entitled to place any judge’s rulings under scrutiny if there are any doubts in terms of their impartiality. In addition, all of them are obliged to announce a potential conflict of interest before starting to work on a new case. Overall, the existing judicial system of England and Wales obliges judges to disregard any sort of external influence. Law, facts, and evidence must remain the only points of reference for them. Such a situation is ideal, as some judges may succumb to the loud voice of the public or other branches of the government. In such scenarios, the principle of accountability provides the judiciary with the power to investigate any case in which doubts arise, placing additional checks on the work of a judge.
While judges remain the face of England’s judiciary, there are other important elements of this system, which ensure that all rulings are constitutional and impartial. As a matter of fact, within the system of a Crown Court criminal trial, it is not the judge’s duty to decide guilt or innocence. This responsibility falls upon the jury, which consists of randomly selected citizens and registered electors. The process is fixed by the Juries Act 1974, introducing a range of requirements for potential members of the jury. First of all, the role is available for citizens within the age of 18-70, who are resident in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands or the Isle of Man for the minimal period of five years since the age of 13. In addition, a potential juror cannot have a mental disorder or be disqualified from such services. This way, the jury is expected to be composed of objective people with clear thinking who care for the country and the safety of its people.
All Crown Courts have the power to summon jurors to hear a case. The process is executed in a random, automatic manner by a computer, as one of the ways of ensuring impartiality. Following the summoning, members of the jury are to inform the court whether they will be able to attend their hearing immediately, or else they face a £1,000 fine. Next, twelve jurors pass the final selection out of the overall fifteen summoned. This stage is also expected to be executed randomly by a Court clerk. All elements of the process are aimed at securing the impartial and independent nature of the judicial system, making the ruling as objective as possible.
Similar to judges, jurors also face a system of checks, the purpose of which is to ensure the selection of fitting candidates. According to the Juries Act 1974, there is a list of specific points, which will prevent an otherwise fitting individual from being selected as a juror. Such conditions comprise a record of life imprisonment sentence, extended sentence, or a period of more than five years in prison or detention. Smaller prison terms, as well as suspended sentences and community orders, lead to an individual, ten-year ban from jury service. Additionally, jurors are obliged to announce any potential degree of personal involvement with the case. This requirement is logical, as conflicts of interest may destroy the impartiality of the whole process, making the ruling invalid. Failure to comply with the requirements may lead to considerable fines and serious legal actions taken against the jurors.
As impartiality remains the cornerstone of the judiciary, many people have reason to support the random selection of juries. This mechanism allows for better protection against external influences. While tempering with the jury is a serious criminal offense, some desperate people would resort to bribery and threats in an attempt to have a satisfactory outcome of the hearing. Randomized selection protects jurors against this influence, making its use completely justified and positive in the author’s opinion. Other participants of a trial will not have any information regarding the personalities of the jurors, which will make it impossible to exercise any kind of influence on them. Additionally, some defendants may at least attempt to present the facts in a way, which may receive sympathy from particular members of the jury. A random selection process invalidates such an approach, leading to the increased objectivity of a hearing.
In conclusion, the purpose of the judiciary in England and Wales is to ensure the impartial and independent process of decision-making in court. The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 has secured the separation of powers in the country, providing the judiciary with effective mechanisms of self-control. While there is much emphasis on the independence of judges, jurors play a role of equal importance in criminal hearings, as it is their responsibility to confirm the defendant’s guilt or innocence. In this situation, their impartiality plays a key role, and it must be guaranteed. This is possible through a randomized selection process, which lowers the risks of external pressure. The use of such a model appears justified, as it serves its purpose of preserving the Constitutional principles of the UK. At the same time, the internal control is executed by a set of checks, which introduce restrictions in terms of the juror selection process. Overall, the regulatory mechanisms appear fitting to the global objective of protecting the country’s democratic values, ensuring that all citizen’s rights are provided.
References
Vito Breda, ‘The Grammar of Bias: Judicial Impartiality in European Legal Systems’ (2017) 30 International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 245.
‘Constitutional Reform’ (Courts and Tribunals Judiciary, n.d.). Web.
The Constitutional Reform Act 2005.
‘Judicial Accountability and Independence’ (Courts and Tribunals Judiciary, n.d.). Web.
Bulgard O, ‘Judges under ‘intolerable pressure’ from social media, says new Lord Chief Justice’ (The Telegraph, 2017). Web.
Trevelyan L, ‘How is a Jury Selected?’ (In Brief, n.d.). Web.
The Juries Act 1974.