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 At a stroke, certainty has been replaced by uncertainty, and the predictable flood of appeals has begun.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

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

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers drives further growth in its UK immigration team with new partner Sophie Barrett-Brown

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal invests in next generation of legal talent as specialist litigation practice grows

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips continues momentum in London with arrival of Catrina Smith

NEWS
Restrictions on workplace non-disclosure agreements could make settlements slower, more complex and more expensive when reforms expected in 2027 take effect
Private prosecutors face closer scrutiny under Crown Prosecution Service guidance designed to strengthen accountability and consistency when intervention is requested
Foreign states cannot necessarily claim immunity for cyber operations launched abroad against computers in Britain, following a divided Supreme Court ruling
Defendants who make unsupported complaints about their lawyers risk losing legal aid while confiscation proceedings continue without representation
Lawyers advising Russian clients face different sanctions restrictions across the UK, EU and US, despite their shared objective of increasing pressure on Russia
back-to-top-scroll