Should Juries Be Challenged?

The UK Government is looking at whether jury verdicts should be open to challenge on the basis of prejudice, after the House of Lords considered the conviction of a Pakistani where a juror afterwards alleged the other jurors had been racially prejudiced.

But that is a risk for anyone in a trial: that the jury will pick on some irrelevant detail or use poor reasoning in arriving at their verdict.

The main safeguard is surely that the courts heed the jury members who do not fall into the trap and refuse to convict. Traditionally, all jury members had to reach agreement for a guilty verdict, but the risk of a wrongful conviction is much increased now that majority verdicts are allowed.

If people are concerned about prejudice in the juryroom, the answer is to revert to the requirement of a unanimity for a guilty verdict.

That is far preferable to opening up juries to "investigations", which would challenge their independence and finality, essential if juries are to be able to stand up to pressure and (in time) possible intimidation from the state, and act as the safeguard of last resort against bad law.

If someone is found guilty in the face of the evidence, there is always the possibility of an appeal, doubtless helped along by the misgivings of the trial judge.

The other reason not to countenance opening up the jury's proceedings after the event is that the state will use it as a device, not so much to ensure wrongful convictions are quashed, but as a way to secure convictions after acquittals. And the fear of losing more cases is the principal reason there will be no return to the requirement for unanimity in guilty verdicts.