Search

The debate surrounding the utility of trial by jury is as relevant as ever. Much criticism of the ability of jurors to carry out their task was brought to the fore following the highly publicised Pryce trial and the comments from Sweeney J indicating a fundamental problem in jurors' understanding of their role. Furthermore, media attention surrounding a steady stream of cases involving juror misconduct has called into question whether jury trial can survive in its current form. This article recognises that although juries are not a normative part of a fair trial, they do have considerable value in enhancing public confidence in the fairness of the criminal process, particularly through the perception of impartiality. If public support is lost, then the value of jury might be lost with it. Whilst the Law Commission is rightly considering how jurors might be more prepared in advance to carry out their role effectively, this article considers the current judicial approach to dealing with the practical issue of juror impropriety once it has occurred. Through looking at a series of trial and appeal cases it can be seen that a framework has developed which seeks to ensure that trials are derailed rarely whilst the impartiality of the jury is safeguarded. It is maintained that in emphasising both actual and apparent impartiality the vital element of public confidence in the existing process can be preserved.

This article outlines the two schemes currently in operation for compensating victims of miscarriages of justice, namely the statutory scheme under the Criminal Justice Act 1988, s. 133, and the ex gratia scheme operated by the Home Office. It outlines and evaluates the operation of the schemes and considers the effect of recent case law. Finally, it considers the inability of a purely monetary scheme to provide meaningful compensation and considers how a recent Home Office initiative with the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux might produce a more holistic approach to compensation.