Jury System

There are several advantages and disadvantages of the jury system. Firstly, the jury is an efficient system, with 800 years of success. The general public acceptance of the way the jury system works give society a feeling of acceptance that is the best way to decide on the outcome of indictable offences. However it may be slow and some trials like fraud can take many weeks or months due to lack of research defies assessment. Allan Doig in ‘Fraud’ stated that there are certain kinds of cases which are seen to be unsuitable for jury trials, such as complex and lengthy fraud trials. S43 of Criminal Justice Act 2003 provides for trial by judge alone to eliminate jury bias and reach fairer verdicts.

Secondly, S51 Criminal Justice & Public Order Act 1994 creates as an offence to intimidate or threaten to harm a juror. However, jury nobbling believed to be frequent resulting in wrongful acquittals. What if juror alleges racial or any other type of bias or wrongdoing by the jury, and no enquiry allowed into jury deliberations after a verdict. The Law Commission in Contempt of Court: Juror Misconduct and Internet Publication 2013 has reviewed and considered the ‘Facebook Scandal’ issue where the juror, Joanne Fraill was charged with disclosing information about jury deliberations on Facebook. Much recently, it has recommended a new statutory criminal offence should be introduced in dealing with the jurors who deliberately search on the internet related to the case that they are trying.

Thirdly, a very significant reason why jury system is advantages is the fact that 12 heads are better than one. A wide variety of opinions and input culminates together in the final decisions and with 12 people any bias is likely to be cancelled out. However, a jury box of 12 can be biassed against one party or the other. Local prejudice can be a problem in particularly emotive cases such as R v Litchfield. Simon Brown LJ said that the jury's views ought to be regarded as well-nigh sacrosanct given that under the law it is they who decide not merely the facts but also the point at which a breach of duty becomes the offence of manslaughter. There would need to be compelling grounds indeed before it would be proper for this court to say that the jury has set the standard impermissibly high.

Fourthly, jury’s decision can be made out what seems right and not whether the offence is illegal. A judge can only administer a verdict based on the fact laid before whereas a jury can decide based on opinion. It has been evident in R v Ponting and R v Kronlid & Others. However, as a juror as laymen, if the evidence points to one defendant being guilty and the other not, jurors can often be led into thinking that if one should be convicted. In other words, guilt by association. Some trials can be very narrowing to the jurors. This was evident in James Bulger trial where same jurors had to receive counselling after the trials.

Finally, if juries do understand the burden of proof, it will be an advantage of reducing the paedophile cases and child murders. However, jurors may not fully understand the trials and may be enticed to vote for the best barrister and not the best case. Prof Cheryl Thomas in ‘Are Juries Fair?’ stated that ‘while over half the jurors at perceived the judges direction as easy to understand, but only minority fully understand the direction in terms used by the judge. Base on this statement, it can be submitted that a training before proceeding with trials is necessary and the verdicts delivered by jurors without trial are always not reliable.

In R v Mirza, HOL believed that there were many objective safeguards in the jury system which could protect the impartiality and independence of the jury system. These safeguards like a randon selection of jurors, the oath is taken to give the true verdict, and instructions are given at the beginning of the trials by the judges to inform a prejudice, bias or misconduct can give use to an offence. However, it can be submitted that these safeguards are not sufficient in maintaining the impartiality and independence of the system.

Alternatively, Jury system can be replaced by a jury or panel of judges. This method is used in civil cases and some criminal trials in Northern Ireland known as Diplock Courts. This process is the least expensive and probably the most proficient way of running a trial, due to it eradicates public involvement there has been a strong opposition to this method. However by discarding the jury they also discard any violence and intimidation to jurors and also any possible bias.

A judge and 2 lay assessors can also be used. This technique is used in most Scandinavian countries such as Austria, Brazil and Germany. Japan has begun implementing a new lay judge system in 2009. Lay judges are appointed volunteers and often require some legal instruction. This keeps some public contribution, yet losses the time and cost of a jury. This method is thought as the adequate alternative. The verdict would be reached by both the judge and lay assessors. The lay assessors would be selected the same way as jurors, however, they amount of public participation would dramatically decrease.

The final alternative is having a judge and a miny jury. By reducing a number of jurors they would save some cost; conversely, most of the disadvantages would still remain. Despite all the disadvantages, it is still utilised today which suggest that it is an advantage to society more than it is a disadvantage.

Voluntary Intoxication

1. Provided that Gorge’s failure to act was the imputable cause of Flop’s death, he is guilty of manslaughter. A person charged with an offence of basic intent, like manslaughter, cannot rely on voluntary intoxication as a defence if his act was causative of the death of the victim (DPP v Majewski (1977); Lipman (1970))
2. Offences of basic intent include, in addition to manslaughter: malicious wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm contrary to s 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (Sullivan (1981)); assault occasioning actual bodily harm (Bolton v Crawley (1972)); and rape (Fotheringham (1988)).
3. In Bailey (1988), the Court of Appeal held that self-induced automatism other than that due to intoxication from alcohol or drugs will provide a defence even to crimes of basic intent except where the defendant was ‘reckless’ – in a general subjective sense – as to the risk of becoming an automaton.
4. That is, if the accused knew that by doing or failing to do something (for example, in the case of a diabetic taking too much insulin or not eating after having taken insulin) there was a risk that he might become aggressive, unpredictable or dangerous with the result that he might cause some harm to others, and that he persisted in the action or took no remedial action when he knew it was required, then it would be open to the jury to find that he was reckless and convict of an appropriate crime of basic intent (for example, malicious wounding, inflicting grievous bodily harm or assault occasioning actual bodily harm).
5. In these circumstances, despite the fact that he lacked the mens rea, the defendant may be convicted of an appropriate offence of basic intent.
6. This rule was also applied in Hardie (1988), where the defendant took a quantity of valium, a sedative drug. The valium was not prescribed to the defendant and the judge treated the case as an ordinary one of voluntary intoxication, ruling that, as it was self-induced, it was no defence to a crime of basic intent. The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction. The court held, distinguishing Majewski, that the rule regarding voluntary intoxication does not apply where the drug is not generally recognised as dangerous. That is, if the drug does not normally cause unpredictable behaviour, automatism resulting from its consumption may provide an excuse for all crimes, even those of basic intent. Only if the defendant was reckless in the Bailey sense can he be convicted of an offence (of basic intent).
7. Although automatism will often afford a ‘defence’ entitling the defendant to a complete acquittal, the causes of the condition must be examined. If there is a prior fault on the part of the defendant either because he is voluntarily intoxicated or has ‘recklessly’ failed to take steps to prevent himself falling into a state of automatism then his condition will not excuse a basic intent crime. If he is not responsible for the automatism, but it is the result of an internal condition that is likely to result in recurrent ‘malfunctioning’, the defendant will be classified as legally insane and entitled only to a qualified acquittal.

Critically evaluate the current law relating to criminal liability for omissions

With reference to decided cases critically evaluate the current law relating to criminal liability for omissions.

R v Miller (1983)
He must have created the dangerous situation inadvertently but he never released it.

*Keeping patients alive.

R v Stone & Dobinson (1977)
If you act on euthanasia, it is a positive act, not omission.

*Airedale NHS Trust v Bland (1993)
The court stated when removed the medication is a positive act, HOL gave permission.
It was held that is was unlawful for doctors to simply stop treatment if its continuance would confer some benefit on the patient. If no benefit at all would be conferred by the continuance of medical treatment, then the doctor are under no duty to continue to treat the patients.

According to 3 Lordships (Lord Lowry, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, and Lord Mustill) descending judgement, the distinction drawn by the HOL between an act and an omission is dubious (doesn’t make sense) in moral terms. What they suggesting is no different from what Prof William Wilson suggesting. Giving Antony slowly die is more tortures than just giving him medicine to kill him.
Find out more argument on this.

Whether omission should become a general duty of care.

1. It has been a long debate between the author whether the omission should be punished by law or not, many of them have argued in favour of it and many of them are going against of its idea. For example, B raped S, as a result S suffered from post trauma stress and wanted to commit suicide. She stood at the edge of her window saw her on the tenth floor but her maid saw what she was trying to do but did not stop her. S jumped to her death.  
• Distinguish main contract is a private contract.
• The main has a voluntary assumption of responsibility to the boss.
• Do we have created a dangerous situation?
• In relation to S, should the law of omission cover general duty?
2. Professor Andrew Ashworth is a strong supporter of the punishment for an omission, but at the same time, he put some limitation on the punishment on omission. The professor talk of 2 different views: conventional view and social responsibility view.
• In the conventional view, where he suggest that criminal law should not punish people unless and until there is a clear case. (Taking a very parental approach, we cannot simply punish people because morally we need to help people. The guilty act must be in the sense of law and not in the sense of morality. The law cannot by using the backdoor impose morality hence legality on me, force me to do something. In certain circumstances, you must impose duty but on circumstance situation. For example, people are drowning not because you didn't help is because they fell. Give supporting argument.)
• In social responsibility view, there is times and situation where people should be held one another and people living in the same society does owe some duties to others living with them.
3. Professor William Wilson
• we might be killing somebody but it seems morally right, but we don't do anything seems morally wrong) 
4. All of the current authors who support the theory of punishment are agree on the point that there should be certain circumstances where a person should ensure his safety first before helping others. “He should not put his life in danger in order to save other”. The moral duties should always be present in the society for the mutual relation among people.
• To examine the concept of R v Kennedy (No.2) (1999), an action of the victim.
• K gave B injection fill with drugs but the victim himself injected and died. The court stated since B is the one who injected, B conduct break the COC and there is no responsibility. Automatically, K is not responsible for B death.
• In R v Evans (Gemma) (2009), the appellant obtained heroin and gave some to her sister who self-administered the drug. The appellant was concerned that her sister overdosed so decided to spend the night with her but did not try to obtain medical assistance as he was worried she would get into trouble. COA stated for the purposes of gross negligence manslaughter, when a person had created or contributed to the creation of a state of affairs that he knew, or ought reasonably to have known, had become life threatening then, normally, a duty to act by taking reasonable steps to save the others life would arise.
• Same facts, different conclusion. In my opinion, Evans is not coming from the pageant hole, it is from the social responsibility view. (Positive act and negative act discussion)
5. There are also authors who support omission not to be penalised as they claimed that it is more of a moral duty than a statutory one.
6. Professor Glanville William is in an agreement with that point (don't take moral obligation into statutory): “a crime can be committed by omission, but there can be no omission in law in the absent of duty of act. The reason is obvious because if there is an act, someone acts but if there is an omission, everyone omits. (He is worried about floodgate)
7. Comparative Study. Countries already have existing general duty of care. Can the UK adopt the rule?