Categories
Criminal Justice Law Legal Analysis Legal Professionals

What is a Jury ?

Jury

In the criminal justice system of England and Wales, the jury is one of the oldest and most distinctive features of the common law tradition. Twelve ordinary people, randomly selected, sit in judgment of their peers and decide whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty.

This system places enormous trust in the collective common sense of lay people rather than leaving the decision solely to professional judges.

History and Origins

The jury system in its modern form traces its roots to the 12th century.

The Assize of Clarendon in 1166, issued by Henry II, required groups of 12 lawful men in each hundred and 4 in each township) to present (report or accuse) people they believed had committed serious crimes.

These 12 men were not yet deciding guilt or innocence in a trial, they were acting as accusers or witnesses, reporting suspected criminals to the King’s itinerant judges.

By the 14th and 15th centuries, juries had evolved from being witnesses themselves into impartial triers of fact who listened to evidence presented in court.

The principle of trial by jury was firmly enshrined in English law through Magna Carta (1215), particularly clause 39, which stated that no free man should be imprisoned or deprived of property “except by the lawful judgement of his peers or by the law of the land”. Over centuries, the role shifted from local notables to ordinary citizens, and the jury became a cornerstone of democratic justice.

Who Can Serve on a Jury ?

In England and Wales, almost everyone aged 18–75 who is on the electoral register is liable for jury service. You are automatically disqualified if:

  • You have been sentenced to imprisonment for life, or for five years or more
  • You have served a prison sentence (or suspended sentence) of any length in the last 10 years
  • You are currently on bail in criminal proceedings

Certain people can be excused or deferred, including full-time serving members of the armed forces, medical professionals, and MPs.

Since 2004, judges, lawyers, and police officers are no longer automatically exempt and may serve.

Jury service normally lasts two weeks, though serious cases (e.g., murder or major fraud) can last many months.

How Jurors Are Selected ?

Potential jurors are chosen at random from the electoral roll by a computer at the Jury Central Summoning Bureau. If summoned, you must attend unless you have a valid reason to be excused or deferred.

Once at court, and once a judge indicates that a trial is ready to start, those who have been summoned are once again randomly selected by a computer system to form a panel to go into court.

From this panel usually 12 are then selected at random, in court, by the court clerk to form a jury on each trial. Those not selected will return to the waiting area to be available for selection for the next panel.

The Role of the Jury

In Crown Court trials the jury has two main functions:

  1. Deciding guilt: After hearing all the evidence and the judge’s directions on the law, the jury retires to consider its verdict. The verdict should normally be unanimous, but after at least two hours (longer in complex cases) the judge may accept a majority verdict of 11–1 or 10–2.
  2. Occasionally deciding other issues: In some defamation cases (now rare) or coroner’s inquests, juries may still be used.

Jurors must decide the case solely on the evidence heard in court. They are not allowed to conduct their own research, talk about the case outside the jury room, or look up information online. Contempt of court charges and even imprisonment can follow if they do so.Judge vs Jury

The division of responsibility is clear:

  • The judge decides questions of law (admissibility of evidence, legal directions, sentencing if guilty).
  • The jury decides questions of fact (what happened, whether witnesses are credible, and ultimately guilt or innocence).

This separation is seen as a vital safeguard against state power: a professional judge controls the law, but ordinary citizens decide whether the state has proved its case.Advantages and CriticismsAdvantages often cited:

  • Democratic participation in justice
  • Protection against overreach by the state or biased judges
  • Collective wisdom of twelve diverse minds
  • Verdicts seen as legitimate because they come from peers

Criticisms include:

  • Jurors may not fully understand complex evidence (e.g., in long fraud trials)
  • Risk of perverse verdicts or prejudice
  • Burden on jurors (loss of earnings, childcare issues, trauma from horrific evidence)
  • Occasional high-profile cases of jury misconduct (e.g., using social media)

Jury Trials

Jury trial remains compulsory for serious crimes tried in the Crown Court (murder, rape, robbery, etc.). Magistrates’ courts and youth courts do not use juries. In civil cases, jury trial is now extremely rare, limited mainly to defamation, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution claims and even then a judge may order trial without jury.

Jury trials to be scrapped ?

On the 2nd December 2025, the government announced the most significant restriction on jury trials in centuries. For the first time, defendants charged with offences carrying a maximum sentence of less than three years will no longer have the automatic right to be tried by a jury in the Crown Court.

“The right to trial by jury is an important factor in the delicate balance between the power of the state and the freedom of the individual. The further it is restricted, the greater the imbalance. Despite the inevitable increase in costs, the Haldane Society urges that there be a right of trial by jury in all criminal cases.”

Sir Keir Starmer writing for the Socialist Lawyer magazine 1992

The change, recommended by retired Court of Appeal judge Sir Brian Leveson in the report Independent Review of the Criminal Courts: Part 1, is intended to tackle a backlog that has reached almost 78,000 cases and is projected to hit 100,000 within a few years.

“Dispensing with juries will damage our democracy”

David Lammy MP (Labour, then Shadow Secretary of State for Justice)
writing in the Telegraph in June 2020

Under the new rules, jury trials will be reserved for the most serious indictable offences such as murder, rape, robbery, serious violence, people trafficking, and major drug crimes involving drugs or firearms.

Mid-level offences previously tried in the Crown Court, including many thefts, lower-level assaults and some sexual offences, will now be heard either by a single judge or by expanded panels of magistrates who will gain new powers to impose sentences of up to 18 months (or two years in reserve).

The reforms also remove the defendant’s historic right to “elect” jury trial in “either-way” cases, a choice often used to cause delay.

Complex fraud and financial trials, long criticised for bewildering juries, will move to judge-only hearings. The government says the measures will clear cases up to five times faster in some instances and prevent the criminal justice system from “total collapse”.

Critics, including the Bar Council, Criminal Bar Association, opposition parties, and civil-rights groups, have condemned the changes as an attack on a cornerstone of British justice dating back to Magna Carta. They argue that juries provide essential protection against state power and are often seen as fairer, especially by ethnic-minority defendants, than magistrates or professional judges sitting alone.

Supporters insist the right to jury trial is being preserved where it matters most, while allowing swifter justice for less serious matters and for victims who currently wait years for resolution.

Is the UK Criminal Justice System Broken ?

Legislation to enact the reforms is expected in preparation, and the full Leveson follow-up report on court efficiency is due shortly.

Conclusion

The jury system in England and Wales, though not perfect, is regarded by many as a fundamental constitutional safeguard and a powerful expression of the idea that ordinary people should play a direct role in the administration of justice. Will Jury trials be scrapped ?

Check out our related articles on What is a Hung Jury ?, Rule of Law, Open Justice, Is the Law Black and White ?, What Does Lady Justice Symbolise ?, Law Society, Law Commission, Solicitors, Solicitors Regulation Authority, Barristers, Bar Council of England and Wales, Bar Standards Board, Contra Mundum, R v Sussex Justices, Police Impartiality and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

The Ministry of Injustice is not the Ministry of Justice nor is it affiliated in any way with the justice system, legal profession, police or any other law enforcement agencies.

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

You should always seek formal legal advice from a qualified and reputable lawyer (solicitor or barrister).

There are a number of links to Free and Paid For Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on the Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

[post_title] was last updated on the 2nd June 2026

By Dom Watts

Dom Watts founded the Ministry of Injustice in July 2021. Dom is an IT Professional with 30+ years experience in Tier 1 Banking, Government, Defence, Healthcare and Global Blue Chips. Dom has no legal training and is not a lawyer but has previously consulted for a Magic Circle Law Firm. You can find Dom on X or Google.

Dom Watts publishes the Ministry of Injustice as a citizen journalist. The journalism exemption is detailed in the Data protection and journalism code of practice published by the ICO and Section 124 of the Data Protection Act 2018.

Section 2 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the defence of truth. Section 3 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the defence of honest opinion. Section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the defence of public interest. Section 8 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the single publication rule.

Section 4a of The Limitation Act 1980 defines the time limit for actions for defamation or malicious falsehood as one year from the date on which the cause of action accrued.

Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 gives the right to freedom of expression. "This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers."

"Free speech encompasses the right to offend, and indeed to abuse another." - Para 43 Scottow v CPS [2020] EWHC 3421 (Admin)

"Free speech is a fundamental common law right" - Para 21 R v Shayler [2002] UKHL 11 [2003] 1 AC 247 per Lord Bingham and Para 42 Phillips -v- Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs [2024] EWHC 32 (Admin)

Dom is a member of The Free Speech Union

“A key issue here is the need to distinguish between conduct which, however objectionable, does not justify invoking the criminal law and conduct which crosses the line and results in criminal liability" - Para 31 R v O’Neill [2016] EWCA Crim 92 [2016]

“Harassment is generally understood to involve improper oppressive and unreasonable conduct that is targeted at an individual and calculated to produce alarm and distress” - Para 38 R v O’Neill [2016] EWCA Crim 92 [2016]

"The behaviour said to amount to harassment must reach a level of seriousness passing beyond irritations, annoyances....The gravity of the misconduct must be of an order which would sustain criminal liability" - Paras [40-44] Hayden v Dickenson [2020] EWHC 3291 (QB)

"If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything"

In 2002 Dom Watts was an unlikely consumer champion. The dad of three from Croydon took on the power and might of Kodak – and won...Dom on BBC Working Lunch

Rule of Law - Open Justice - Policing By Consent