Unit 1 Law revision

Intrinsic aids
Matters within the act itself which the court can use to help make the acts meaning clear to
the judge
• The long and short title of the act
• In the Abortion act the short title said “an act to amend and clarify the law to
termination of pregnancy by registered medical practitioners”
• The preamble
• In the climate change act it states the purpose of the act is “to enhance the UK’s
contribution to combat climate change”
• The definition section
• Section 1 of the theft act defines theft, so the judge can use this particular meaning
in court.
• Schedules
• This is an addition to the act as in the hunting act refers to exempt hunting activities
which are listed in Schedule 1

Extrinsic Aids
• Dictionary
• Of the same year the act was made – as in Cheeseman he wasn't convicted after the
court looked up the word “passenger”
• Hansards
• Official reports of parliament about the act – if the word trying to be interpreted has
been discussed in parliamentary debate
• Reports
• On which the act was based – As in DPP v Bull a report on homosexuality was
referred to.
• International Treaties
• Any that the UK have signed and if the relevant word is defined in there
• IE: The treaty of Rome 1957, which set up the EU

Rules of Language
• Ejusdem Generis
(General words rule)
• General words in a list
are of the same type
as specific words
• Powell v KPRC
• Specific: Room,
office, house
• General: Other
place
• Outcome: Specific are
all indoors so “place”
must also be indoors
• Expressio Unius
(Express words rule)
• Only words
expressly used in
the act are included
• Sedgely Miners
• Express: Coal
mines, act only
refers to coal
mines
• Noscitur a Sociis
(context rule)
• Unclear words in the
act take their meaning
from all other words in
the act.
• Muir v Keay
• Unclear word:
“Entertainment”
• Court discovered its
meaning by examining
other parts of the Act.
So café was a place of
entertainment.

Literal Rule
The judge takes the plain ordinary
meaning of the words of the act
even if it leads to an absurd result.
If the judge uses this rule, they
believe that they are under
parliament and must follow the
words of the act
• Whitely v Chappel
• Act said it was illegal to
impersonate a person “entitled to
vote”. D impersonated a dead
person at a vote.
• Judge said that the dead person
was not entitled to vote and so D
was not guilty
• Cheeseman
• Judge used a dictionary of 1847 to
find the meaning of passenger and
used the literal rule.

Literal rule
Advantages
• It respects the hierarchy of parliament
• The literal rule avoids judges taking important policy decisions that should be taken
by parliament
• DHSS v Royal college of nursing – the house of lords used the mischief rule but some judges
felt that the literal rule should have been used and then the matter considered by parliament.
• Democratic
• Judges are unelected and it would not be right for them to change what elected
politicians have written
• Encourages parliament to review acts
• Using the literal rule can highlight problems with an act
• In Fisher v Bell, Judges said that advertising a flick knife in a shop window was technically not
offering it for sale

Literal Rule
Advantages
• Certainty and predictability
• The rule encourages certainty which helps people know where they stand
• If judges are always changing the words in acts, it creates confusion
• A lawyer can advise a business how the unfair contract terms act will apply to
agreements
• Quick and cheap to use
• Often the ordinary and literal meaning can be found from a dictionary
• In Vaughn v Vaughn, The word molest was quickly found in a 1973 dictionary
• Or Cheeseman, the word passenger was quickly found in a 1847 dictionary

Literal Rule
Disadvantages
• Absurd Results
• The rule may lead to absurd or unfair results which parliament could not have
intended
• In Whitely V Chappell, it was obviously parliaments intention to stop all kinds of electoral
fraud.
• Inflexibility
• Where there is more than one dictionary meaning, the literal rule cannot provide a
solution
• Its always going to be difficult for the words in an statute to cover every eventuality
• It adds to the work of Parliament
• Parliament is very busy, it is not helpful that judges refused to make minor changes

Literal Rule
Disadvantages
• It ignores the limitations of language
• Parliament can make mistakes and some parts of the act may be poorly
constructed
• The law commission criticised the literal rule for relying on “unattainable perfection in
draftmanship”
• It can result in cases being decided on technicalities rather than
common sense
• This may mean that jusice is not done and leave people feeling that the law is
not working properly
• In fisher v Bell, displaying a flick knife in the shop window was not considered to be and
offer to sell

Golden Rule
A modification of the literal rule. The
golden rule starts by looking at the literal
meaning but then allows the judge to avoid
an interpretation that would lead to an
absurd result
Narrow Application
if a word is ambiguous the judge
may choose between possible meanings of
the word to avoid an absurd outcome
Wide application
when there is only one meaning to
the word but It would lead to an absurd
outcome, the judge can change the
meaning of the word to avoid it.
Narrow case – R v Allen
the offence of bigamy is committed by
marrying someone whilst married. Literally it
is impossible to commit the offence, because
you cannot marry whilst married.
The court held that “to marry” meant to ‘go
through a ceremony of marriage’ and
convicted Allen
Wide Case – Adler v George
The official secrets act made it an offence
to be found ‘ in the vicinity of a prohibited
place’ The accused was arrested inside the
prohibited place therefore argued he could
not be guilty.
The judge changed the meaning to ‘being in
or in the vicinity of a prohibited place’.

Golden Rule
Advantages
• Courts can avoid an absurd result
• Courts can alter the wording of a stature if the result is absurd
• R v Allen when they altered the meaning of the word to marry
• Saves parliament time
• The golden rule prevent parliament from having to pass an amending
legislation as the court can do it easily
• R v Allen, Adler v George
• Respects the authority of Parliament
• Because it is still using the words of the statute and usually only choosing
between definitions so still respects what parliament wrote.
• Only the wider application will change the word and this is only in extreme
circumstances as in Sigsworth

Golden Rule
Disadvantages
• It only allows the words to be changed in certain circumstances
• For example in Berriman, the word could not be changed because although the
outcome was unfair it was not absurd
• Its unpredictable
• There is a lack of guidelines to when it should be used, as there are no tests to
whether or not the outcome will be absurd.
• Made worse by the two applications as some judges say you should not go further
than the narrow approach and some use the wide as in Adler v George
• The application is inconcistent
• Even when the same judge is used as the same judge used the Golden rule in Adler v
George but the literal rule in Fisher v Bell, where the outcome was just as absurd.

Mischief Rule
The rule is laid down in Heydons case.
There are three factors to consider
when using the rule
1. What was the common law before
the act was passed
2. What was the mischief that the act
was designed to remedy
3. What was the remedy that
parliament was trying to provide
4. What was the reason for the
remedy
Judges should identify the mischief and
interpret the act so a remedy is
achieved
Smith v Hughes
“soliciting on the street” was forbidden
in the street offences act. In this case, it
was held that this included soliciting from a
window as the aim of the act was to allow
people to walk along the street without
being solicited.
Royal college of nursing v DHSS
“Registered medical practitioner” -
House of lords held that the purpose of this
act was to prevent illegal backstreet
abortions and that having nurses carry
them out was not unlawful.

Mischief Rule
Advantages
• Respects parliaments intentions
• In Smith v Hughes it was clearly parliaments intention to stop prostitutes for
being a nuisance
• Saves parliament time
• It allows judges to use their common sense – it allows judges to fill the gaps
when parliament have left something out and saves them having to pass and
amending act
• It allows judges to consider social and technological advances
• Royal college on nursing – they recognized that medical practice had changed
since the abortion act.

Mischief Rule
Disadvantages
• Finding the intention of parliament can be hard
• Can be argued that the intention of parliament is what is written in the act
and if its not their then they didn’t intend it – but in Smith v Hughes, if
parliament intend to stop soliciting in houses, it would have said so.
• Its undemocratic
• It gives too much power to unelected judges – some argue judges should be
lead by the acts and not parliaments intentions.
• Rule is out of date
• It does not reflect the modern needs – Heydons case was in 1584, and isnt
really relevant any longer.

Purposive Approach
This approach requires the court
to examine the object of the act
and to interpret and doubt
passages in accordance with that
purpose
Jones v Tower boot company.
The court decided that racist
harassment by fellow workers
happened ‘in the course of
employment’ – Court of appeal said
it was right to give the words a
meaning other than their natural
meaning so that the purpose of the
legislation could be achieved.

Purposive Approach
Advantages
• Most relevant of all the rules
• It makes sense to look at the whole purpose of the act. Now a days judges should be
able to look at what the act was designed to do rather than just look for the mischief.
• Respects Parliaments intentions
• It allows for mistakes in the act or when parliament have forgotten to include
something which should obviously be included in their intention
• It allows judges to use common sense
• It allows judges to ‘fill the gaps’ when parliament have left something out.
• Allows judges to take into account technological changes
• In RCN v DHSS they recognized medical practice had changed since the abortion act.

Purposive Approach
Disadvantages
• Finding intention of parliament can be hard
• It can be argued that the intention of parliament can be found in the act and
is not elsewhere. And that in some cases assuming the act included other
things could be wrong else parliament would have included it
• It is Undemocratic
• It gives too much power to unelected judges – judges are to be are to be
guided by parliaments enactments and not by their intentions.
• It might cause confusion
• When a judge changes the meaning of a statute – some judges refuse to alter
the words of a statute because it would mean that ordinary citizens did not
know where they stand.

Avoiding Precedent
Distinguishing
• If the judge finds that the facts
of the case are materially
different from the case setting
the precedent, they can
distinguish the case and avoid
following that precedent.
• Balfour v Balfour
• Unable to enforce and agreement
as it had been made during
marriage.
• Merritt v Merritt
• The couple had an agreement. The
judge said this agreement was
binding as it had been made after
the marriage broke down so was
materially different from balfour.

Avoiding Precedent
Overruling
• Judges in the higher courts can
overrule the decisions of the
lower courts if they consider the
legal principles to be wrong.
• The Practice statement 1966
allows the supreme court to
overrule their own decisions.
• Court of Appeal can refer to
young v Bristol Aeroplane to
avoid injustice in criminal cases.
• Herrington
• Child trespasser injured on railway
line
• An occupier of land owes child
trespassers a duty to protect them
from injury
• The HL overruled its own previous
decision made in Addie v Dumbreck
1929

Avoiding Precedent
Disapproving
• A judge may disapprove a
decision if they think the
precedent is wrong but has to
follow it and cannot overrule it.
• The disapproving comments are
persuasive and may influence
decisions in future cases
• Hasan
• The house of lords disapproved
the earlier decision of the court of
appeal in Hudson v Taylor about
the availability of the defence of
duress where there was
opportunity to go to the police.

Practice statement of 1966
• R v Shivpuri
• D tried to deal drugs but the
substance turned out to be
vegetable powder not drugs
• Legal decision
• A person can be guilty of attempting
the impossible
• The first use of the practice
statement
• The supreme court overruled their
own decision only a year earlier
admitting they had got the law
wrong.
• R v R
• A man raped his wife
• Legal decision
• The supreme court overruled the
long-standing but outdated
assumption that there could not be
rape within marriage
• The law must meet changing social
values.

Young v Bristol Aeroplane CA
• This case allows 3 exceptions for the CA to avoid its own decisions.
1. If there are two precious decisions of the Court that conflict
• The court must then decide which of its decisions to follow
• Parmenter
• D injured his baby handling him roughly
• The CA had decided bodily harm could only be committed if D had foreseen the risk of injury. They had also
decided that foresight of harm was not required.
2. If a previous decision of the CA conflicts with a HL decision
• The CA must then follow the HL
3. If a previous decision of the CA is made carelessly or by mistake (incuriam)
• Then the court is not bound by its earlier decion
• Rakhit v Carty
• The court of appeal di not have to follow two earlier cases concerning a “fair rent” because they had
been decided without reference to the rent act

Young v Bristol aeroplane CA
• In Criminal cases, the CA has an
extra power to avoid its own
decision if it causes injustice to
the defendant
• R v Spencer
• Court recognized it may be
necessary ‘In the interest of
justice’ to depart from previous
precedent in criminal cases
because a persons liberty may be
at stake

Precedent
Advantages
• Consistency
• Certainty allows people to know what the law is enabling lawyers to predict the likely
outcome of a case. Without this people could not be sure that the law would stay
the same and that would make panning for the future much more difficult.
• Flexibility
• As precedent can be overruled, distinguished and disapproved. This allows the law to
evolve. As in R v R when the house of lords accepted that a man could be guilty of
raping his wife (Example of changes in social attitude)
• Based on Real-life situations
• As the law is made form actual cases it becomes very precise and builds up to a large
body of law covering almost every situation. It is also more likely that the law will
have developed in a common-sense way.

Precedent
Disadvantages
• Lack of Research
• In order to decide a case the judge is only presented with the facts of the
case. Unlike parliaments who have time and methods of researching
thoroughly to ensure the law is done properly.
• Retrospective effect
• After the precedent has been passed, it applies to event that occurred before
it was set. This could lead to unfairness as parties involved in the case could
not have known what the law was prior to their actions as in R v R
• Rigidity
• The strict hierarchy means that judges have to follow binding precedent.
Therefore, bad or inappropriate decisions cannot be changed unless they are
heard in a higher court that can overrule them.

Ratio Decidendi
• The legal principle upon which
the decision of the court is
based. It means reasons for the
decision
• It is the binding part of the
decision
• R v Howe (House of Lords)
• D took part in murder but claimed
he was acting under duress
because of threats to kill him if he
didn’t.
• It was held that the defence of
duress is not available for murder
• This rule was then followed by court
of appeal

Obiter Dicta
• Means ‘other things said’
• Refers to anything the judge said
that is not essential part of the
ratio
• They do not form part of the
binding precedent
• Judges below don’t have to follow
them but can be persuaded by it.
• R v Gotts
• D tried to kill his mother
because his father threatened
him if he didn't. But she survived
the stabbing
• Court of appeal were persuaded
by the obiter in R v Howe which
stated that the defence of duress
should not be a defence to
attempted murder either

Persuasive Precedent
• This is precedent that is not binding on the court. But they are persuaded
to follow it. It comes from multiple sources:
• Statements made in Obiter Dicta : R v Gotts, from R v Howe
• Courts lower in the hierarchy : R v R, the HL agreed with CA
• Dissenting Judgments: Where a judge disagrees with the majority ie: 2-1 in the CA.
The judge who disagreed will explain his reasoning. If the case is then appealed, the
supreme court may prefer the dissenting judgment and follow it
• Decisions of courts in other countries: This includes Scotland and the US, especially
countries which based their legal system on ours i.e.: Canada and Australia
• Decisions of the privy council: This court is not part of the court hierarchy in England,
but many of its judges are also members of the supreme court. So their judgments
may often be followed : Holley – The decision is not binding in England but CA
followed it and supreme court approved.

Original Precedent
• If the point of law has never
been decided before, whatever
the judge decides will form a
new precedent for future cases
• Donoghue V Stevenson
• This case set a major precedent in
the law of negligence.
• D went into a café with a friend
who bought some ginger beer. The
bottle was poured out and a
decomposed snail came out of the
bottle. Mrs. D became ill.
• Mrs. D could not sue the café as
she did not buy the drink. But
could sue the manufacturer for
their negligence
• Legal decision of D V S
• People had a duty in law not to do
anything which they should realize might
cause injury to other people
• The manufacturer had been negligent
• He owed Mrs. D a duty of care which he
broke
• So Mrs. D was entitled to compensation.

Magistrates
• Trying summary offences and most
triable either way offences
• Mode of trial proceedings for
either way cases
• ‘Sending for trial’ hearings in
indictable cases
• Youth court cases where D is aged
10-17
• Issuing arrest and search warrants
• Deciding bail

Qualifications of Magistrates
• Age limit
• Minimum of 18-65
• Retirement at 70
• Time
• A mag must be able to attend court at
least 26 half days a year
• Swearing of Oath of allegiance
• Magistrates must promise to serve the
British monarch, although British
nationality is not a requirement.
• Over 30000 magistrates trying over a
million cases a year.
• 6 Key personal Qualities
• Good character
• Understanding and Communication
• Social awareness
• Maturity and sound temperament
• Sound Judgment
• Commitment and Reliability
• Disqualified groups
• Disqualified
• Have a serious criminal conviction
• Have been declared bankrupt
• Ineligible
• Work in incompatible jobs such as police
force
• Are seeking election to parliament

Magistrate selection (Justices of peace act)
• Advertisement
• In the area where the need has arisen.
Applicants must live or work in that locality
• Application form
• Available from the ministry of justice,
online or hard copy. This is checked by the
local advisory committee. Made up of
former magistrates and local political
parties
• Interview
• First interview
• To assess personality and the 6 key
characteristics
• Second interview
• To assess ability by discussing practical
examples
• Composition of the bench
• Each bench should reflect the community it
serves. However most magistrates still
come from a professional managerial
background and 40% are retired from a full
time job
APPOINTMENT
• The local Advisory committee will submit
the names of successful candidates to the
lord chief justice whoe will make the
appointments under the Crime and
courts act.
• The final stage is the ‘swearing in’ of the
new mags, by a Senior Circuit Judge

Magistrate Training
• Training is supervised by the
judicial studies board and carried
out by legal advisors at court.
• Training is based on competences
• Managing yourself
• Personal organization and conduct in
court
• Working as a team member
• Usually on a bench of 3 magistrates
• Making judicial decisions
• Making impartial and structured
decisions
• Early Training
• A new magistrate will undergo
introductory training on the basics of
the role, after this they will sit in the
court with two experienced mags
• Mentoring
• Each new magistrate has a specially
trained magistrate mentor to guide
them through their first months and
they meet to discuss their progress

Magistrate Training
• Core training
• During the first year, new
magistrates visit courts and
prisons to help them understand
more about the criminal justice
system.
• Appraisal
• About 12-18 months after
appointment, the new magistrate
is appraised to check that they are
fully competent
• Continuing Training and
Development
• Appraisals continue every three
years
• If a magistrate wants to take on
further responsibilities such as
becoming a chairperson or
working in the youth court they
must undergo additional training.

Role of magistrates
• Summary Offences
• Before the trial
• Under the Bail act, magistrates decide whether or
not to grant bail
• They also make decisions on legal aid entitlement
• Carry out a pre-trial review to ensure both sides are
ready for trial
• At the trial
• As a bench of three, magistrates hear evidence from
both sides
• They then decided guilt as a unanimous/majority
decision
• After the trial
• Decide sentence with reference to maximum
sentencing power
• 6 month imprisonment for each crime
• Unlimited fine
• Send case to crown court if sentence powers are
insufficient
• Either way offences
• Before trial
• Conduct plea before venue process including a mode
of trial hearing if D pleads not guilty
• Power to send for trial to crown court
• Pretrial review if offence to be tried summarily
• Sentence or send for sentence following guilty plea
• Bail or custody if case is adjourned for any reason
• Trial as in summary case
• After trial
• Decide sentence with reference to maximum
sentencing powers
• Send (Commit) case to crown court for sentence if
powers are insufficient
• Indictable offences
• Carry out a ‘sending for trial’
• Decide bail

Other roles of magistrates
• Appeals in the crown court
• They sit alongside a Judge in the
crown court hearing appeals against
conviction or sentence.
• Hearings in the youth court
• Specially trained magistrates deal
with young offenders, usually in
private
• Both sexes are represented on the
bench to ensure the young person
feels comfortable
• If they find them guilty they have
different sentencing powers such as
they cannot go to prison
• Duties outside of court
• Magistrates may grant police
warrants for arrest and search of
premises and extensions of custody
up to a max of 96 hours
• Some act as mentors to new
magistrates during their training or
make visits to schools or prisons
• Under the licensing act magistrates
have a role in civil law hearing
appeals against refusals to grant
alcohol or gaming licenses, they do
some family work like care orders and
emergency protection orders.

Magistrates Court
• Legal Advisors
• Legally qualified advisers, sit with
lay magistrates in court
• Their role is to explain the law
• Decisions must still be made by
the magistrates and the adviser is
only there to guide them
• In R v Eccles justices – The verdict
was overturned on appeal
because the adviser took part in
the decision
• District Judges
• District judges are legally qualified
• They normally work as barristers
or solicitors when they are not
sitting as a judge
• They are able to hear cases alone
in the magistrates court. The
justices of peace act 1997 allows
them to have the same powers as
a bench of magistrates sitting
together

Advantages of Magistrates
• Cost compared to judge
• Unpaid – Most cases tried without need of a judge – judge salary over £90,000 a year
– saves £100million a year (In 1998 mags court case cost £550, whereas crown court
cost £8,600)
• Local knowledge
• Sentencing can take into account local problems – explanations of areas not required
like they are in crown court
• In Paul v DPP – D was charged with kerb-crawling. Magistrates knew the neighbourhood and
knew it would be a problem and convicted
• Few appeals
• Very few defendant challenge the decisions made by lay magistrates which suggest
they are good
• Less than 1% of magistrates’ decisions are appealed.

Disadvantages of Magistrates
• Unrepresentative of society
• Socially unrepresentative – white, middleclass, professional and wealthy – some
racial mix is better reflected. (4% are under 40 years old and 50% are over 60)
• Inconsistent sentencing
• Inconsistency between neighboring benches
• In Lincolnshire, 4% of defendants sentenced to immediate custody compared to 14% in
humberside. In south wales, 21% convicted of driving whilst disqualified were sent to prison
compared to 77% in Essex.
• Biased in favor of police
• Same police witnesses seen again and again – they often believe the police
regardless
• R v Bingham justices – D and police officer contradicted each other ( chairman said ‘”my
principle in such cases has always been to believe the evidence from the police officer”)
• Rely too heavily on legal advisors
• Not allowed to help but can seem as though they are
• R v Eccles Justices

Juries
• In bushels case it was
established that the jury were
the sole judges of fact and that
juries may acquit a defendant,
even when the law demands a
guilty verdict
• R v Ponting
• D found out that the government
had lied about the sinking of a ship,
he gave the documents to a MP so it
could be raised in parliament
• Jury saw that although he broke the
law, he did it for good reasons and
equitted him
• Juries take part in less than 1%
of all criminal trials.
• Qualification
• Under the Juries act
• Age limit – 18 to 75 (changed to 75 in
criminal courts and justice act 2015)
• Residence – Lived in the UK for at
least 5 years since their 13th birthday
• On the electoral list

Jury (Not qualifying)
Disqualification
• Under criminal just act 2003
• On Bail
• Criminal convictions
• Permanently disqualified
• Served in prison longer than 5 years
• Disqualified for 10 years
• Served any prison or community
service
• Mental disorders or mental health
problems
• A juror can be discharged if unable to
perform their duties due to:
• Physical disability, such as deafness
• Insufficient understanding of English
• Deferral
• This delays jury service for up to a year if
you can show a valid reason why you
cannot attend the original dates
• Eg: work commitments or holidays
• Excusal
• This takes a person off the list for a year
• Right to be excused
• Member of the armed forces with a note
from the CO
• Others have to apply for permission
• People who have already served in the past
2 years at a long or distressing hearing
• MP’s/medical professionals
• Those over 65 years of age
• Lawyers and police no longer have a right
to be excused.

Selection of Jurors
• Jury central summoning bureau
(JCSB)
• JCSB select a pool of names at
random for each court area using the
electoral register.
• Letters are sent to each prospective
juror informing them of their
selection
• Information is provided on what to do
if the potential juror thinks they are
unable to attend
• If a disqualified person fails to
disclose, they are liable to be fined
£5,000
• Anyone who fails to turn up when
summoned is guilty of a criminal
offence
• In jury waiting room
• On their specified date the candidates
turn up at the court and are placed
together in a jury assembly area or
waiting room
• At random, a court official will select
15 candidates from this pool for each
court
• 15 are chosen
• In case a candidate is prevented from
serving in a particular courtroom due
to a connection with the case or if it is
expected to last more than 2 weeks
• In court
• Names are again drawn randomly by
the clerk and before each juror is
sworn in they may be challenged

Jury Challenges
• The prosecution can use stand
by the crown without giving
reason, to remove ‘a manifestly
unsuitable juror’, usually where
jury vetting has been authorized
• Vetting
• CRB checks – to see if criminal
offences have not been declared
• Authorized jury check – in cases of
national security.
• The defence and prosecution
can challenge ‘for cause’ if they
give a good reason why an
individual juror should not serve
• The juror is personally known
• Challenge ‘To the array’ – where
both parties may challenge the
whole jury panel
• Because its not representative of
the community
• In the Romford jury case out of a
panel of 12, nine came from Romford
living within 20 doors of eachother

Role of Juries
• Number of cases decided by juries
each year is about 60,000
• During the trial
• The jury listen to evidence and
submissions by pros and defence
counsel
• Looking and exhibits, photos and
videos
• Notes may be taken and jurors may
pass questions to the judge
• At the end of the case
• The jury listen to the judge
summaries the evidence in the case
and direct the jury on relevant legal
issues
• In complicated cases, the judge will
also provide a structured set of
questions to assist the jury in the
deliberations
• Jury Room
• The jury retire to a private room for a
secret discussion to consider their
verdict
• It is the offence of contempt of court
to try and get information from jurors
• Mirza – Juror had been bullied during
deliberations. HL refused to intervene
because what happens in the jury
room is meant to be a secret.

Roles of Juries
• Unanimous and majority
verdicts
• At first the jury must try to reach a
unanimous verdict
• After a minimum period of 2 hours
if they cannot all agree the judge
may accept a majority verdict
under the criminal justice act (a
minimum of 10 must agree)
• Public announcement of verdict
• The jury choose a spokesperson to
deliver their verdict when they
return to court

Advantages of Juries
• Balance against state interference
• Juries can find defendants not guilty even if they are obviously guilty
• R v Ponting – R v Kronlid – Bushels case
• Racially balanced
• 2007 research shows no difference between white and black minority ethnic
people in positive respons to jury service
• Thomas report of 2010 – 63% of white defendants and 67% of Black defendants
• Elimination of Bias
• Juries are free from bias and are regarded as the fairest way of reaching a
decision In the courts
• 81% of juries in 2008 reached a unanimous verdict

Disadvantages of Juries
• No reasons given for the verdict
• Jurors can be forced to go with flow or give genuinely perverse verdicts
• R v Mirza – HL refused to intervene when told how a jury reached their decision
• R v Young – Jury used a ouija board to help their decision. This could be investigated as it was
outside the jury room
• Jury Nobbling
• There is a danger juries may be bribed or intimidated into reaching a verdict
• Criminal justice act 2003 allows trial by judge without jury if there was areal danger of jury
nobbling – R v twomey after 3 previous trials
• Not truly representative of the public
• Too many reasons not to qualify – reluctant jurors try harder to get out of it
• Mothers of young children are often excused – 26% of jurors were excused on discretionary
grounds – the average age of juries is older than it should be because young people are more
likely to be excused from serving

Appeals from magistrates court
• Appeal against conviction
• Appeal by the defence
• Heard in the crown court by a
professional judge and two
magistrates
• Essentially a re-trial where the
court will review evidence again
• Crown court decision is final and
no further route of appeal against
conviction
• Appeal ‘by way of case stated’
• Appeal by either the prosecution
of the defence
• Heard in the Divisional court
• This is an appeal on a point of law.
There is no need to hear from any
witnesses.
• Final Appeal
• From the divisional court to the
supreme court but only on a point
of law of public importance

Appeals from Crown court
• If D found guilty
• Appeals by the defendant can be made against
sentence or conviction to the court of appeal
• Leave to appeal has to be granted by the judge
• Appeals against conviction
• If the court of appeal decides that the conviction is
unsafe, they can
• Quash the conviction
• Substitute a conviction for a lesser offence
• Order a new trial
• Appeals against sentence
• Court of appeal can confirm or reduce sentence
• The prosecution can appeal against ‘an unduly
lenient sentence’.
• If D found not Guilty
• Impossible for prosecution to appeal a not guilty except in cases
of jury nobbling or where new evidence has come forward
• Jury Nobbling
• Under the criminal procedure and investigations act the court of
appeal can order a retrial if the jury has been bribed or
threatened.
• New and compelling evidence
• Under the criminal justice act the court of appeal can order a
retrial when new and compelling evidence is produced
• It is only available for the most serious offences, and usually
happens because of DNA evidence
• Attorney Generals references
• The prosecution may appeal on a point of law by asking the AG
to refer case to the court of Appeal
• Purpose is to correct the legal rule for future cases and it does
not affect the innocence of the person in the trial.

Intention to create Legal relations
• Family
• Jones v Padavatton
• Despite the high value (moving to UK
in exchange for a house) –
agreements between family (mother
+ daughter) not binding
• Exception Simpkin v Pays
• Agreement between 2 family
members and their lodger was
binding because the lodger was a 3rd
partyy
• Business
• McGowen v Radio Buxton
• Any agreement intended to advance
trade or increase profits (radio
competition to win a car) will be
binding
• Jones v Vernon Pools
• Pools coupons carry a clause saying
they are binding in honor only this
prevents the coupon from becoming
a contract

Unit 1 Law revision

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Unit 1 Law revision (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Unit 1 Law revision