An Analysis Of The Auld Review

In the year 2000, Lord Justice Auld was required to assess the current English Legal System. He conducted a review of the criminal courts system, inquiring into the procedures of the courts, the way they practice trial and the rules regarding evidence. His aims were too increase the efficiency of the court system, strengthen the effectiveness of the criminal justice system and overall increase public confidence.

Many different aspects of the criminal justice system were analysed, including the criminal justice system as a whole by itself. The main purpose of the criminal justice system is to balance the conviction of the guilty and the acquittal of the innocent. It protects the right of the defendant using safeguards, incase they're innocent or until they're proven guilty. These safeguards were amended in the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which was a response to the Auld review in the first place. In section 69 of the aforementioned act, it is stated that, a) the criminal justice system must be accessible, fair and efficient and, b) the rules must be both simple yet clearly explained. Auld also had suggestions for the magistrate's court, the judiciary, trial procedures, appeals and juries. The latter has much inefficiency, to which Auld has numerous responses for.

A perfect juror would draw influence from everyday life experience to deliberate without prejudice or mindlessness on the evidence they have been shown in the court. This sort of person who is intelligent and individual enough is not always the type of person who gets called to jury service. The use of juries therefore could be described as difficult to get the correct result, because there simply isn't the right type of person sitting on jury service everytime.

Juries in the Crown Court consist of twelve members who have qualified after fitting certain criteria. They must be between the ages of 18 and 65, have lived in the UK for the at least 5 years since their thirteenth birthday and be on the electoral register. Lord Justice Auld realised that this method of qualification doesn't give a full representation of the UK population, which is why juries are used in the first place. He proposed that juries need to be more widely represented. In order to do this certain changes to the qualification process needed to be made. He suggested that people should not have to be registered to vote in order to qualify. This is because numerous studies have noticed that at least 20% of the black population the UK isn't registered to vote, and sometimes race is an important factor in a case. One such study carried out in 1979 by Baldwin and McConville revealed that the number of ethnic jurors should have been ten times higher than it was. Even though this is so, there is no power for a judge to ensure there are ethnic minorities on the panel. Lord Justice Auld stated that he would like to see provisions put in place that ensure that an ethnic balance is reached in a case were race is likely to be an issue. However, in the Government's response to the Auld Review in the white paper "justice for all", they indicated that they are unlikely to implement this recommendation. The Government paper did agree that the selection of potential jurors should be widened though. Auld also suggested that the ineligibility and excusal as of right factors that potential jurors can use to excuse themselves should be abolished. This would mean that judges, lawyers, policemen and doctors et cetera would have to sit as a juror. This conjures up numerous criticisms, including the fact that a lawyer in a jury room will influence the rest of the jury with their legal interpretation of what occurred in the courtroom.

Another problem with jury service is that sometimes juries just aren't appropriate for certain types of cases. For example, the evidence in a fraud case can be very confusing, and jury members can struggle to understand it. This can lead to the jury acquitting the defendant simply because they don't understand what has happened. After the introduction of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 this outcome can be avoided because it set out guidelines regarding trials of indictment without a jury, including fraud cases which are contained under section 43. The Government white paper "justice for all" also extended this to cover criminal cases that are long and confusing, not necessarily regarding fraud. Lord Justice Auld was the first to recommend that juries should not be used in complex fraud cases. Instead, he recommended that a single judge and two lay personnel, probably skilled in the chosen field, should sit on the panel. This is one of the many alternatives to jury trial that are used throughout the continent.

There is also a problem with high acquittal rates in criminal cases heard at the Crown Court. Juries have been criticised in the past for acquitting too many cases, even though most of the time this is on the judge's recommendation. This may be because jurors either don't understand the facts enough to decide beyond all reasonable doubt to convict, or they let their personal feelings cloud their judgement. This is a point LJ Auld made in his review. He said that juries should not have the right to disregard evidence and acquit based on their personal feelings or any other reason.

The secrecy of the jury is a somewhat mixed argument. The jury discussing and deciding on their verdict in complete secrecy means that no one would know how they came upon their decision. This can be seen as a disadvantage because it will never be known if the jury understood the case and reached their verdict for the right reasons. They could have a complete lack of understanding regarding the case and its facts. Recently, to avoid this outcome, judges have started to give summaries to the jurors before their deliberation, to ensure they understand before going into the jury room. Researchers in the past have tried to analyse jury deliberation before but when sec 8 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 was introduced it made it illegal to talk to jurors. However, secrecy could also be advantageous because it keeps the jurors free from outside pressure and external influences. As long as they remain anonymous they can provide whatever verdict