header-logo header-logo

22 May 2008 / Martin Rackstraw
Issue: 7322 / Categories: Features , Legal services , Procedure & practice , Profession
printer mail-detail

In the balance

Martin Rackstraw weighs up jury eligibility issues and the arguments for the removal of potential bias in juries

Recent government measures aimed at reforming criminal justice have the look of solutions searching for problems. None more so than the changes to the rules on jury eligibility brought into effect by s 321 and Sch 33 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA 2003) which removed the bar to police officers, prison officer, lawyers and others involved in the administration of justice from serving. At a stroke, certainty has been replaced by uncertainty, and the predictable flood of appeals has begun.

In R v Khan [2008] EWCA Crim 531, [2008] All ER (D) 212 (Mar), and in R v Alan I unreported October 2007 CA, the court has considered a series of appeals revolving around jury bias. These cases followed the House of Lords' judgment in the conjoined appeals in R v Adbroikof; R v Green; R v Williamson [2007] UKHL 37, [2007] All ER (D) 226 (Oct), which had attempted to clarify the

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll