 |
|
| | >>> Click
here to download Final Fantasy Ringtones |
 |
#1  English Law revision. I have my Law AS exam tomorrow. This is my revision, because my hand hurts from writing. Feel free to have a read through if you like, and if anyone's doing the same as me then shout if you see something I've missed. It's all from memory, and I'll update it as I complete different parts of my To Do list. To Do:
Juries Act 1974 set out guidelines for selection. Qualifications: - must be on electoral roll; - must be aged between 18 and 70; - must have lived in the UK, Channel Islands or the Isle of Man for 5 years since their 13th birthday; - must NOT BE DISQUALIFIED. Disqualifications: - must not have been given life imprisonment or a custodial sentence of more than 5 years; - must not have been given any other custodial sentence or suspended sentence within the last 10 years; - must not have been given a community sentence within the last 10 years; - must not currently be on bail. Failure to disclose the fact that you are disqualified can result in a fine of up to £5000. Discretionary excusals and deferrals You can ask to be excused (at the bailiffs discretion  ) or for your jury service to be put back to another time for:- the death or illness of a close relative; - your own health reasons; - religious festivals; - a pre-booked holiday. Failure to attend court can result in a fine of up to £1000. Lack of capacity: - Mentally ill people are exempt from jury service; - the judge can send a juror away if they: are blind/deaf, can't understand English, find the case too traumatic. Vetting: - the extra checking of jurors for religious or political background. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 scrapped: Ineligibility: - Anyone involved in the administration of justice - i.e. judges, barristers, solicitors, clerks etc - didn't have to serve. Excusal as of right: - Members of Parliament, the armed forces, and the medical profession didn't have to serve; - the essential services - i.e. firemen - didn't have to serve. Decision making: - Unanimous -all agreed- decision is preferable; - Judge can accept majority verdict -10 to 2 or greater- if jury cannot decide unanimously. Secrecy: -Jurors are not allowed to disclose anything that was said or done in the case. Role - Juries: - listen to audio evidence - i.e. tape recordings, cross-examinations by barristers; - look at visual evidence - i.e. CCTV, cross-examinations by barristers; - go on site visits to the scene of the crime; - take notes, and can send relevant notes to the judge; - decide the facts of the case; - retire to the jury room and select a foreman; - decide in secret if defendant is guilty or not guilty. Advantages of a Jury: 1. Public Confidence - The public trust the jurors' decision because the defendant is being tried by his peers 2. Jury Equity/Fairness - Jurors don't have to give reasons for their verdict - Jurors don't have to follow precedents or Acts of Parliament 3. Open System of Justice - The judge's explanation of the law to the jury opens up the judicial system - The public are involved in the distribution of justice 4. Secrecy of Jury Room - Jury is free from pressure and outside influence - Jury can make unpopular verdicts without fear 5. Impartiality/Unbiased - Jury isn't connected to anyone in the case - Random selection gives a good cross-section of society - No one person is responsible for the decision Disadvantages of a Jury 1. Perverse Decisions - Jury doesn't have to give reasons for their decision - They could acquit a clearly guilty man - i.e. Ponting's Case - civil servant leaked information about a ship 2. Secrecy - Members of the jury could be quashing unbiased jurors and making an unfair decision - Jury could be being petty - i.e. making the decision based on the defendant's appearance 3. Media Influence - Jurors are told to ignore everything they may have heard or read, and make their decision based solely on the evidence given. BUT... - The jury could still be basing their decision on the news coverage 4. Racial Bias - Jurors could be being racially bias - for or against - Usually countered by other jurors 5. Lack of Understanding Runciman Commission found that: - only 56% of jurors say they understood the case - 1% say they didn't understand anything 6. High Acquittal Rate - Just under 40% of cases end with acquittal 7. Other - Expensive - loss of earnings and travel expenses are both paid for - Jurors may rush decision because they don't like jury duty Summary of Juries: Juries Act 1974 set out selection rules: - Qualifications - Disqualifications - Discretionary Excusals and Deferrals - Lack of Capacity - Vetting Criminal Justice Act 2003 scrapped: - Ineligibility - Excusal as of right Jury: - Decision - Secrecy - Role Advantages: 1. Public Confidence - trial by peers 2. Jury Equity/ Fairness - no precedents or Acts of Parliament 3. Open System of Justice - public have a role is distributing justice 4. Secrecy of Jury Room - no pressure on jury 5. Impartiality/ Unbiased - cross-section of society Disadvantages: 1. Perverse Decisions - no reasons for decision 2. Secrecy - could be making unfair decisions 3. Media Influence - could believe everything they read 4. Racial Bias - racism usually countered by other jurors 5. Lack of Understanding - Runciman Commission - 56% good, 1% bad 6. High Acquittal Rate - 40% let go 7. Other - expensive and dislike of duty Last edited by Quin; 01-13-2008 at 03:51 PM. |
01-13-2008, 02:29 PM
|  
|
| |
| Site Staff  | Having studied the International Baccalaureate instead of AS/A-Levels and having to sit exams at the end of a two year period, I never understood the 'oh well, there's resits' attitude. I'd have loved modular exams that would've been easier to deal with rather than a hell of a lot of revision for a lot of big and important exams right at the end. |
|
01-15-2008, 10:20 PM
| 
|
!
