Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Need help to start this off.

Hello, I recently got assigned this task to do:

Answer the following question:

“The House of Lords in the case of R v Abdroikov and others undermined the main purpose behind the reforms to eligibility for jury service contained in the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The whole point behind the reforms was to ensure that juries represent a greater cross-section of English society and this would include those involved in the administration of justice.”

Critically consider whether you agree with the above statement in light of:

a) The role of the jury in a criminal trial;
b) Relevant case law concerning problems experienced with eligibility and perverse verdicts in jury trials;
c) The reforms and proposals for further reforms concerning jury eligibility that have been made since 1965.

I think I know what the question is asking me about: Asking me if the House of Lords in the case R v Abdroikov contradicts/hinders with the reforms(which was that the allowed people from occupations who were ineligible to be on the jury panel before the CJA 2003).

Which I need to say if I agree with that or not.
But I'm confused as to how to answer this question:

Do I need to say how they undermined the main purpose of the reforms? And how they didn't in that case? Because I'm not sure what points to make (would be helpful if someone gave me a hint)
Or do I just follow the (a) (b) and (c) given after the question?

The case R v Abdroikov and others is basically: 3 appellants (N, G, and W) who have been convicted on unrelated offences. However, they all appealed on the basis that serving police offers and a CPS solicitor were members of the juries meaning they had been deprived of a fair trial. Two out of three appeals to the House of Lords was allowed as one jury panel contained a police officer and the other contained a CPS lawyer

Would really appreciate it if you could give me a hint/advice on how to tackle this question.

Thanks,

Zerthy :smile:

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 1

Nubian Rapunzel

Hi I think there are a few points here -

1.Do you agree that the House of Lords in the particular case above undermined the main purpose behind the reforms to eligibility to jury service?

2. Do you agree that the whole point behind the reforms was to ensure that juries represent a greater cross-section of English society?

To decide whether you agree, you need to look at and comment on the points below:

a) The role of the jury in a criminal trial;
b) Relevant case law concerning problems experienced with eligibility and perverse verdicts in jury trials;
c) The reforms and proposals for further reforms concerning jury eligibility that have been made since 1965.

I've not started the degree yet so this is just my opinion! Hope it helps x