Reports Of Committees: Report of the Departmental Committee on Jury Service
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1965.tb02909.x |
| Author | W. R. Cornish |
| Date | 01 September 1965 |
| Published date | 01 September 1965 |
REPORTS
OF
COMMITTEES
REPORT
OF
THE
DEPARTMENTAL
COMMITTEE
ON
JURY
SERVICE
THE
Report
of
Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest’s Committee on Jury
Service sticks predictably to its restricted terms
of
reference
:
“
to
inquire into the law and practice in England and Wales regarding
qualifications for, exemptions from, and conditions
of
jury service,
and related matters.” The jury is too frequently the subject of
national genuflexion
to
invite public inquiry
or
responsible investi-
gation
of
the whole institution, except under some extraordinary
pressure.* The Committee show an awareness of wider
problem^,^
but their recommendations scarcely touch such questions
as
the un-
animity rule, the size of the jury, the division
of
functions between
judge and jury, the kinds
of
trial in which it is used, and alternative
tribunals which might replace it.4 They take
it
that the
jury
will
continue its present functions in the criminal courtss and in conse-
quence do not spend much time debating the values thought to be
enshrined in the system, although qualification for service is an issue
fundamental to
it.
They are content
to
accept that trial by one’s
peers today requires that
a
jury should be
a
representative cross-
section of the community, containing members without special skills
or
experience,6 who are physically and mentally able
to
participate
Cmnd.
2627.
There had been fairly steady pressure to consider the qnalifications for jury
service on successive Home Secretaries for some time before Mr. Brooke
annoiinced the setting
up
of the Morris Committee in November
1962
(its
membership was made pnblic in May
1963)
:
in particular, the National Council
of
Wornen showed continuing concern about the exclusionary effect
of
t,he
property qualification on women, and two private members (Mrs. Judith Hart
and Sir Barnett Janner) promoted Bills to alter it in
1962.
In
addition, at
the Old Bailey in November
19ti1,
a juror of low intellectual capacity approached
a
witness in the t,ris\, and Elmes
.T.’s
censure of him waa the cause
of
some
pnblic disquiet about selection
of
jurors.
”. .
.
We
wodd
not wish to prejudice any future inquiry into the merits
of
the
jury
system
as
to which we realise that there is room for divergent
views
”:
pari.
14.
4
The (loiiiriiittee specifically refer to arguments in favour of fiome form
of
majority verdict
as
worthy
of
futnre consideration (paras.
35g3.583
;
they
recommend aldition
of
the City
of
London special jiiry for commercial caRes
(already all but defunct) (para.
340-3421,
and they reject the interesting
suggestion that
some
form
of
special jnry should he introdiiced
for
coniplicated
criminal trials
(para.
343),
hut that, is the extent of exploration
of
fiiich
matters.
5
They
accept t,hst the
jury
has only
a
minimal
part
to
play
111
civil
cases:
paras.
3%%.
Coroners’ juries have become t.he whject of
separate
inquirv
hy
a
kIoiiie
OUice
I’ornrriittee
iinder Mr. Hrotlerick,
U.C.,
and
are
accordingly not
dealt
with
Iiy
the Morris
(‘oniniittee
save
for
a
rvsiinit!
of
the present legal
provisions,
a
note
of
the view
of
the Coroners’ Society that the nunibtar
of
inquests involving
a
jury should be drastically reduced. and sonie sugjiestiona
concerning how their recommendations concerning trial juries might apply to
C:oroners’ juries: Appendix
11.
6
Para.
104.
577
To continue reading
Request your trial