Original post by helena1999They usually ask about the advantages/disadvantages of both jurors and magistrates.
I've learnt these as -
Magistrate advantages - RBCK
Representative, 57% women, 9% ethnic minority
Bingham (Lord) called them "democratic jewel beyond price"
Cost, only pay for expenses, w/o magistrates would cost judicial system £100 million extra as will need 1000 more judges, all being paid at least £100,000
Knowledge of the area, in Paul V DPP, a man was able to be convicted based on the magistrate knowing that the area the defendant was kerb crawling was residential making it a nuisance.
Magistrate Disadvantages - RUPA
Reliant on Legal Advisors, R V Eccles, the legal advisor retired with the magistrates although no law was being discussed
Unrepresentative, 2/3 are managers compared to the 1/3 in society, also 57% are over 60 and 0.37% are under 30 which means defendants (usually under 25) are not being judged by their peers
Prosecution Bias, Bingham Justice has told us that Magistrates have admitted to believing the police over defendants
Auld report has said it is "disproportionately well off and middle class" as they can afford to work for free whereas lower classes cannot.
Jury Advantages - PEEL
Public enthusiasm, for examples home office report 2004 found that over half of those summoned were 'enthusiastic' and the others feeling reluctant said this was mainly due to their availability.
Equity, in Stephen Owens, the defendant attempted to kill the man who killed his son through bad driving and who had previous convictions, he was found innocent, showing morality and fairness come into light under the justice system without limitations of law.
Elimination of bias, research in 2007 found that a racially mixed jury will not discriminate a defendant, showing its fairness. It has also been called 'the light that lets freedom live'
Long and established approach, the magna carta 1215 has said 'every person has the right of a lawful judgement by their peers'
Jury Disadvantages - MBIC
Misuse of media, jurors can be irresponsible and not follow their role properly, in Fraile and Sewart, the juror spoke to the defendant on Facebook whilst his guilt was being deliberated
Bias, Jurys can judge people based on their appearance etc. Also in Dallas, the juror went home and researched the defendant and found out his previous convictions making her decision a biased one as they shouldn't know prev. convictions
Influences, they can be easily knobbled by gang members,R V McKenna, the defendant was acquitted as the judge gave the jury a limited time frame which goes against them being independent
Complexity of issues, sometimes Jurors don't take their role seriously and can be naive, in Delroy Grant, the defendant was charged with raping 29 women within 10 years, he argued his ex wife planted his semen, he was convicted on a 10-2 basis showing that 2 were fooled by his alibi.
I know this is a lot to learn in the few hours you have left but i hope it helps.
They usually ask a question about the cases a mag/crown can deal with or the process or possibly the work of a magistrate. If you need help with these just ask.
They usually ask about the qualification and selection - which you have learnt as well as the advantages/disadvantages.