The justice system recognizes several procedures based on which the judgment can be delivered. Among all, the jury trial serves the role of the significant instrument for the consideration of the merits of the case and the delivering the opinion of the public over the particular matter. In this regard, the jury trial should be understood as the trial proceedings within which the jury is responsible for the examination of the facts presented in the case and decide over its effect on the possible order. According to the UK legislation, the jury is usually compound of 12 persons, which should be selected in the diversified manner out of the people which are at the age above 18 years old. At the same time, the amount of the people involved in the jury may depend and vary in relation to the merits of the case and its importance. Meanwhile, the composition of the jury matters in case there is no need to have several steps in the consideration of the case. In this regard, the amount of the representative of the jury may be less than 12.
Furthermore, it is necessary to dwell separately on the objective pursued by the jury in the trial proceedings. This mechanism within the justice system is used for the resolution of the case between two or more sides to the claim. Besides, the issues submitted for the consideration of the jury and the judge are divided into two groups: the questions of the law and questions of fact. In this respect, the jury has the authority to define the questions of the fact, while the questions of the fact refer to the power of the judge. This division of the functions is caused by the fact that the judge has the relevant professional background and experience that provide him with the opportunity to interpret the provisions in the current legislation. Accordingly, the members of the jury are chosen from the different groups of the population, regardless of their professions so that these people are not aware about the main principles of the legal acts and can not apply the norms of the current legislation.
Furthermore, the jury exercises the important role during the justice system as it provides the ordinary citizens with the opportunity to participate in the proceedings. In this respect, it should be said that the jury trial has the long-lasting history. Since the adoption of Magna Carta in 1215, the people get accustomed to the trial proceedings and the relevant judgment. Meanwhile, the jury trial plays the important role in the consideration of the criminal cases. The right to request for the jury trial is available for the population of the Untied Kingdom as it is regarded as the pivotal principle of the criminal justice. Simultaneously, it is highly important to take into account the following steps of the jury trial proceedings:
Selection of the jury
Opening statements of the parties
Closing arguments
Presentation of the decision of the jury
Delivering of the judgment upon the case.
According to the framework of this stage, the representatives of the jury are chosen among the proposed persons on behalf of the court. For the purposes to select the juries which will have to decide the merits of the case, the lawyers of the parties to the case evaluate the reliability of these juries and their confidence in the delivering the truth. Meanwhile, the representatives of the juries should be deprived of any biased perceptions regarding the offenders in the case or the subject considered. Furthermore, it is highly important that people selected for the jury have no linkages, relative and commercial one, as it may influence the decision of the person regarding the further judgment of the merits of the case. In addition, the lawyers of the parties to the case may challenge the confidence of the particular jury and request the court to substitute this individual. In this regard, the challenges regarding the position of the jury is based on the challenges for the cause and the respective peremptory challenge. Given the fact that the overall amount of the submitted challenges is not stipulated by the current legislation, the lawyers have the right to consider all propositions of the court. Consequently, there is no timeframe for the composition of the member so the jury so that the trial proceedings may be prolonged due to this fact (Foster, 1882).
Despite the existence of the jury trial in the justice system, this procedure is not used in the majority cases. In this regard there are following advantages and disadvantages of this mechanism. Concerning the positive impact of the pros of the trial proceeding by the jury, the benefits are the following:
The prevalence of the jury equity based on which the division of the persons may ensure the fair judgment of the facts involved in the trial proceedings;
The existence of the jury trial leads to the maintenance of the transparent and open system of the justice in the United Kingdom;
The juries are entitled with the right to keep confidentiality regarding the causes for the adoption of the decision, while the judiciaries should give the reasoning and interpretation based on the case law for the audience upon the delivery of the judgment;
All representatives of the jury have no biased perceptions and prejudice while in relation to the consideration of the case the jury rely on the moral and ethical principles which guide the interpretation of the actions of the offenders;
The opportunity to refer to the principle of the “jury equity” based on which the jury has the authority to forward the non-guilty order judgment in the fulfillment of the legal provisions;
The pursuit of the division of the powers and responsibilities of the juries and judges in the case;
The representatives of the jury get the opportunity to interpret the provision of the law to some extent within the limits established by the current legislation (Brady, 1983).
In contrast, the existence of the jury equity is regarded as one of the major benefits of the jury trial in the United Kingdom and within the entire justice system. Based on this principle, the juries may consider whether the reasoning of the court and the jury concede upon the merits of the case. In addition, the jury may overrule the decision adopted by the court in case any flaw in the interpretation of the facts and the law itself can be found. The importance of this notion is supported by the order in case R. v. Ponting.
In contrast, there are numerous features that turn the jury trial into the complicated and expensive process what in facts describes the primary disadvantages in the usage of this mechanism. First of all, the jury trial lasts for longer period of time, due to the fact that since the initial stage of the process that parties to the dispute should find the consensus about the appointments of the representatives of the unbiased juries. Among all, the following disadvantages should be taken into account:
The jury system of the United Kingdom has no relevant educational process that may provide the representatives of the jury to be informed on the exact amount of the rights and opportunities vested in the juries, while they have no understanding in the resolution of the particular cases and disputes. In this regard, the decision of the jury may be found as non-relevant.
Some representatives become the subject of the social group influence. In this respect, the individual may loose the freedom of choice in the resolution of the particular case and join the opinion of the majority while the judgment will be found not fair.
The expenses related with the maintenance of the jury trial are higher than the ordinary proceedings so that the parties should take it into account before the requesting the legal advisors to refer to the opportunity to use the jury.
The juries are selected from the ordinary individuals, which usually have no proper and relevant professional background for the resolution of the legal issues. In this regard, the decision of the jury may all within the lieu of the emotions changing the behavior of the individual in the consideration of the merits of the case (Anwar, Bayer & Hjalmarsson, n.d.).
Therefore, there are several pros and cons of the usage of the jury trial in the justice system of the United Kingdom. In order to avoid the evident disadvantages in the application of this procedure, the legal representatives should explain to the clients the benefits and flaws of the jury trial so that the person submitting the case to the court can exercise the freedom of choice in the identification of the relevant mechanism for the consideration of the case.
The judges upon the consideration of the case should apply the existing principles of the law and the relevant customs for the resolution of the dispute rather then rely on personal understanding of the situation. In this regard, the expert has elaborated the declaratory theory of the law. According to the notion and framework of this approach, all judges have the obligation to act in accordance with the stare decisis pillar, while the appropriate judgments of the case law and rules developed by the relevant state authorities as the Parliament should be applied for the judgment of the merits of the case. However, some legal experts believe that the declaratory theory identifies the conduct of the judges and the force of the judgments of the judiciaries. In this regard, the influence of the declaratory theory is seen in the fact that the role of the judicial consideration is seen in the interpretation of the provisions of the current legislation, while no new forms of the law are created. Besides, the importance of this legal approach should not be disregarded due to the following reasons it should be supported:
Maintenance of the separation of the powers between the institution involved in the process of the creation of the legal norms and their interpretation in the judicial institutions;
The law created by the judge has the retrospective power;
The decisions of the judges are adopted in line with the main principles of the common law of the United Kingdom.
At the same time, the declaratory theory should be seen from the perspective of the provisions of the Human Rights Act of 1998. According to the provisions of this legal instrument, the application of the declaratory theory appears to be less defensible by the judges during the trial proceedings. In this respect, the judges are the exclusive actors that have the power to interpret the provisions of the international acts and several conventions. Accordingly, the essence of the declaratory theory may be seen as the ambiguous one. From one point of view, the interpretation and usage of the judicial law provides the rest of the subjects with the opportunity to obtain the extended view of the legal consents which are treated from the position of the particular judge. Besides, the judges still should be governed by the principles of the law and rely in their interpretation of the other facts and cases which may support the delivered opinion.
Meanwhile, the role of the declaratory theory was considered in the case Donoghue v. Stevenson in 1932. According to the merits of the case, the judges were requested to amend the existing law in order to deliver the opposite opinion upon the case. Given the fact that the judges adopted new law, it had the retrospective effect on the resolution of the case and the person was not found guilty. Moreover, by virtue of the introduction of new legal provisions, the judges obtained the opportunity amend the originally wrong legal standing and create the benefits for the individual. Meanwhile, the international obligations recognize the existence of the power to declare the law by the judges in case it may influence the welfare of the end-users of this legal provision. In particular, article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights defines that the any person may be found guilty in case there is relevant provision in the current legislation which may support this view.
In terms of the declaratory theory, one should pay attention to the existence of the judicial deference. Based on the framework of this approach, the judges have the power to reconsider the existing provisions of the legislation which have been adopted by any other party in order to adopt the another reasoning they may create the following benefits for the individual or any other subject of the relations. In general, this theory is maintained within the territory of the United Kingdom due to the fact that there is no Constitution stipulating the division between the different state bodies and the judicial institutions governing the interpretation of the legislation on the diversified levels. However, for the better understanding the notion of the judicial deterrence, one should pay attention to the judgment in case A v. Home Secretary considered in 2005. The merits of the case show that the particular group of the people was imprisoned as their actions were found in the violation of the provisions of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act of 2001. Their actions were considered to violate the integrity of the national security. In this regard, the court was requested to reconsider the judgment and evaluate the impact of the actions of the group over the national security under the provisions of the Human Rights Act of 1998.
Besides, the judicial system of the United Kingdom is aware of the pillar of the parliamentary sovereignty. The organizational structure of the bodies and institutions in the United Kingdom implies that the parliament has the supranational power to introduce the legislation in comparison to the other state bodies. The notion of the parliamentary sovereignty was developed by A.V. Dicey as the legal expert. Based on his view, the acts adopted by the parliament should have the primary force and power over the other legal instruments. In addition, this approach has been confirmed in the case Vauxhall Estates v. Liverpool Corporation. Under the judgment in this case, the power of the parliament is not restricted so that the activity of the members of the parliament should be beyond the actions of the representatives of the courts.
Although, the concept of the parliamentary sovereignty has faces a lot of challenges. Some experts believe that given the current development of the state institutions in the contemporary society implies the implementation of the principles of the balance of the powers. In this regard, the provisions of the Human Rights Act of 1998 define that the principle of the parliamentary sovereignty is not absolute. In this regard, the primary origin of the supremacy of the power of the parliament has been changes significantly. Nowadays, the Parliament is able to control the activity of the government of the United Kingdom so that by this separation of the powers the balance has been achieved successfully. Besides, for the interpretation of the role of the parliament, one should pay attention to the fact that the decisions of the relevant international institutions should be accepted by the parliament of the United Kingdom as the primary one due to the difference in the forces of the decisions. Therefore, the parliamentary sovereignty is affected by the relevant decisions of international bodies, such as European Court of Justice, which should be implemented accordingly in the national legislation of the country. At the same time, the national court may challenge the limits of the parliament sovereignty by realization of the declarative theory jointly with the introduction the new legal reasoning upon particular matter.
References
Anwar, S., Bayer, P., & Hjalmarsson, R. A Fair and Impartial Jury? The Role of Age in Jury Selection and Trial Outcomes. SSRN Electronic Journal. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2014963
Brady, J. (1983). Fair and impartial railroad: The jury, the media, and political trials. Journal Of Criminal Justice, 11(3), 241-263. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0047-2352(83)90117-4
Foster, D.. (1882). Advantages of the Jury System. The North American Review, 135(312), 447–460. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/25118214
