There are number of academics, lawyers, and judges who see jury trials as guardians of civil rights and due process. Darbyshire’s argues that these theories lack proof and that the symbolic function of the jury far outweighs its practical use. In Ashworth’s words, area as sensitive as criminal justice theory should only be accepted if justifiable.
The popular statement: We have ”a “constitutional right” to jury trials”, is what Darbyshire argues first. Claim that the right to jury trial derives from Magna Carta hasn’t been justified so far, mostly due to the fact that legal historians (Holdsworth, Forsyth and others), whose …show more content…
The accepted ratio cannot always be achieved by jury trials (McConville research). Furthermore, Darbyshire uses actual case law (The Guildford Four, the Maguires) to demonstrate instances where jury failed to uphold the right to due process at pre-trial stage and the innocent have been convicted. To quote Darbyshire: “Devlin’s “lamp that shows that freedom lives” did not offer a glimmer of hope”. She also uses case law (Birmingham Six) to demonstrate how hard it is to appeal jury’s verdict and how reluctant the Court of Appeal is to overturn it (Lord Lane L.C.J.’s excuse of non-interference). In conjunction with previous statements, Darbyshire also questions jury’s “power” to rewrite the law. Criticism arises from citing other writers who criticise lay justices and judges for being inconsistent and making irrational decisions (page 7). It does seem odd the aforementioned criticism hasn’t been extended towards jury trials, where no reason behind a decision has to be stated. If there are instances where irrationality is praiseworthy, those circumstances, as Darbyshire suggests, should be clearly defined. Since current legislation (Contempt of Court Act 1981) precludes discussion and observation of real jury, the only possible assumption is that the idea that jury trials are fair and epitome of justice stems from media and iconic portrayal of