Juries in England and Wales

In the legal jurisdiction of England and Wales, there is a long tradition of jury trial that has evolved over centuries.

The inquest, as a means of settling a fact, had developed in Scandinavia and the Carolingian Empire while Anglo-Saxon law had used a "jury of accusation" to establish the strength of the allegation against a criminal suspect.

[10] If the defendant pleads autrefois (i.e. claims that he has already been acquitted or convicted of the offences charged), the judge now decides the matter without a jury.

[12] The exact majority required depends on the number of jurors, and failure to reach this threshold may lead to a retrial.

[16] All common law civil cases were tried by jury up to the introduction of juryless trials in the new county courts in 1846.

The perceived success of this system, together with increasing recognition of the integrity of judges and the professionalisation of legal institutions, meant that, when the Common Law Procedure Act 1854 gave litigants in the Queen's Bench the option of trial by judge alone, there was a steady uptake.

[19] In 1933 the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1933, s.6[20] guaranteed the right of jury trial in the Queen's Bench Division for:

The 1933 Act also provided that: "but, save as aforesaid, any action to be tried in that Division may, in the discretion of the court or a judge, be ordered to be tried either with or without a jury."

The Act brought a de facto end to civil jury trials in England and Wales save for the causes where the right was guaranteed.

In Ward v James,[22] Lord Denning, delivering the judgment of the Court of Appeal, held that personal injury cases were unsuitable for jury trials owing to the technical expertise and experience needed in assessing damages.

In 1993, in Rantzen v Mirror Group Newspapers (1986) Ltd and others it was held that judges could substitute awards by juries in civil cases on appeal if they are deemed to be excessive.

As such, as of 2021, only fraud,[21] malicious prosecution,[21] and false imprisonment[21] still carry the automatic right of a jury trial.

During the Second World War, the Administration of Justice (Emergency Provisions) Act 1939 authorised trials with only 7 jurors, except for treason or murder.

There are facilities for the parties to inspect the panel and for individual members to be examined by the judge if there are doubts about their fitness to serve because of lack of proficiency in English or because of physical disability, for example deafness.

[35] If there are not enough jurors on the panel then any person in the vicinity of the court can be summoned to make up the numbers, a process known as "praying a tales".

Two people declined to take up the jury service, but eventually "the judge's strategy paid off and the trial was able to go ahead after one passer-by was recruited from the street and two other jurors were transferred from Winchester.

[38] Some Christians (notably Quakers, Moravians and Jehovah's Witnesses) will not take an oath because they believe it is prohibited by Matthew 5:33-37 and James 5:12.

The option to affirm is now commonly used by Quakers,[39] Moravians, Jehovah's Witnesses, and some other Christians as well as by atheists and agnostics.

I solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will faithfully try the defendant and give a true verdict according to the evidence.

However, prosecutors are instructed to invoke this right sparingly as the quality of the jury is primarily the responsibility of the court officer.

"[50] Checking the criminal records of the jury panel by the police is only permitted on the authority of the Director of Public Prosecutions, and only if:[51] Checks beyond criminal records may only be made if authorised by the Attorney General and there are adequate grounds for a prosecution request to stand by.

[59] It is a contempt of court for a juror to disclose, or for anyone else (including the press) to enquire into, the nature of the jury's deliberations.