Hi, I'm Mrs. Allchin and I'm going to be taking you through this citizenship lesson today.

I'm going to give you all the information that you need to be successful and I'm also going to pause and tell you when to complete a check for understanding or a task.

Hope you enjoy the lesson.

This lesson is called: What key roles do citizens play within the criminal justice system? And it comes from the unit of lessons: How can we play a part in the legal system? By the end of this lesson, you'll be able to explain the impact that citizens have on the justice system when they become a magistrate, JP, or member of a jury.

These are our key words for today's lesson.

We've got jury which is a group of local people who are chosen randomly to make a decision in a legal case.

Justice which is fairness as a result of the application of a law, usually by a judge in society.

And we've got magistrate or justice of the piece JP, ordinary people that handle minor cases or preliminary hearings in magistrate's courts, ensuring justice in criminal, family, and youth cases.

And this is our lesson outline for today.

First, we're going to look at what is the role of the jury.

And then, we're going to look at what is the role of the magistrate or JP.

So let's begin by having a look at the role of the jury.

So Jun is asking, "What is a jury?" So just pause for a minute and just think anything you can think about or remember or think you might know about what is a jury.

A jury is a group of 12 citizens who have been randomly selected from the electoral register to decide the verdict, guilty or not guilty, in a criminal trial in a Crown Court.

They play a crucial role in the justice system and must therefore listen really carefully to the evidence presented to them in court.

They need to discuss the case in private and they need to reach a decision based on the facts on the law that's been explained to them by the judge.

So Jun is asking, "Having regular people decide someone's guilt seems quite strange.

Why doesn't the judge decide?" If we think about that, that could seem a little bit strange that it's ultimately a group of just 12 normal ordinary people that decide if someone's guilty or not guilty.

So just pause and think for yourselves for a couple of seconds.

Why might that be the case? Why isn't it that we just have a judge deciding? So juries help to ensure that justice is fair and democratic because ordinary people rather than always just legal professionals are involved in the justice system.

They also bring a variety of life experiences because a jury will be a complete cross section of society offering lots of different diverse perspectives which can help balance potential bias from legal professionals.

So the jury ultimately is a representation of society, a representation of peers.

And this also links to the Magna Carta which King John signed in 1215.

This was a document that limited the king's power and ensured that no one was above the law, not even the monarch.

And clause 39 within that Magna Carta that King John had to sign, stated no free man could be imprisoned except by the lawful judgement of his peers, social equals, or laws of the land.

So that notion of being sort of judged that guilty or not guilty by peers within a court of law actually stems right back from the Magna Carta.

So Jun is asking, "But, isn't there a huge risk of bias within the jury?" Pause and have a think about that yourselves.

When selecting a jury, both the defence and the prosecution, so both sides can disallow jury members who they feel may have biases within the case.

So members of the jury they legitimately feel could be biassed within that case.

So for example, a jury member who had recently had their home broken into may struggle to be impartial when hearing evidence relating to a home robbery case because it's recently happened to them and they're going to have lots of emotions about that.

So that would be an example of when someone might bring bias into the courtroom as a member of the jury.

And that's why it's really important that both the defence and the prosecution are able to disallow any potential jury members on that basis.

The jury are also regularly reminded about significance of their role and they're guided by the judge at all times.

So they're not just completely left to their own devices, they are constantly being monitored and having things explained to them.

Let's have a check for understanding.

When can the defence or prosecution discount a member of the jury? So they can discount a member of the jury if they have reason to suspect bias due to something personal relating to the jury member.

So for example, a crime that they have been victim of.

The jury plays an important role within our justice system and this is why: They safeguard against state power, ensuring that the government and courts cannot unfairly convict people.

They ensure justice is decided by peers that represent society, not just the judges.

And they are independent and do not know the parties involved.

And actually if you are called for jury service and you know somebody within the case, you are actually not allowed to be a member of the jury.

You would have to tell the people that so that you won't able to take part as a member of the jury because then, that would obviously be bias.

And let's have a look now at the logistics of being a member of the jury.

So being called for service does not necessarily mean you will sit on a jury.

So for example, you might get called to go to jury service.

But while you are there, a defendant might change their plea, meaning that a jury is not required.

You cannot be a member of the jury if you are under 18 or over 75 are a criminal or on bail or if you hold certain jobs.

So for example, if you were a barrister or a police officer, there'd be a bit of a clash of interest there.

So you wouldn't be able to sit on a jury.

As being a member of the jury is such an important civic duty, a person must apply for exemption if they cannot take part.

So you can't simply just say, "No, thank you.

I don't want to do it." You've gotta have a valid reason for not being able to take part.

One of the jury members will also be appointed as foreman of the jury.

They will chair the meeting.

So when the members of the jury sit to discuss the case and discuss the evidence, they will chair those meetings.

And at the end of the case, when the judge asks if the jury has found the defendant guilty or not guilty, it is that the foreman that will stand up and deliver that verdict.

The jury will listen to evidence within the courtroom and they'll take guidance from the judge.

They will then meet together privately to discuss the evidence and make their decision.

A unanimous verdict, that's everyone together, everyone voting the same thing is expected.

So that is the ideal situation that all of the members of the jury will agree that someone is either guilty or not guilty.

But the judge can allow for a majority verdict if a unanimous decision cannot be reached.

Let's have a check for understanding.

There is a mistake in each paragraph.

Can you spot them? So in each of these three paragraphs, there is a mistake.

Pause while you have a go at this check for understanding.

Let's have a look.

So in the first, it said three of the jury members will be appointed as foreman.

It's actually just one of the jury members that is appointed as foreman.

In the second, it talked about how they will meet together privately to make their decision based on their opinion.

But actually it's not based on their opinion.

The jury must base their reasoning on evidence.

And the last one, unanimous verdict is expected.

If one isn't reached, the judge must throw out the case.

That's not the case at all.

The judge can expect a majority verdict.

So the judge can have asked to expect and accept a majority verdict.

In recent years, there has been debate about whether the role of the jury should continue.

On the side of for, arguments for include: it gives that public participation, there's impartiality, it can give trust in the system because it's been decided by peers, and we know that there's that secrecy of deliberations when that goes on within the court and just outside of the court in the jury room.

So there's some of the arguments for.

However, there are also arguments against, and they include the fact that jury members will likely have a lack of legal knowledge.

They could still be susceptible to bias.

There could be misconduct where people in the jury don't do as that they're meant to or they break the rules or there could be inconsistency.

So Jun is saying, "Juries make the justice system more open to everyone and group decisions are less likely to be biassed than one judge deciding everything.

People also trust verdicts more when they're made by regular citizens.

Plus, juries can talk about the case in private with no pressure." So Jun there is given an argument for keeping the jury as it is.

However, Andeep is saying, "Juries don't have legal knowledge, so they might not fully understand the law.

They can also be biassed or influenced by personal opinions.

Jurors don't always follow the rules and their decisions aren't always consistent, which can make the system unfair." So Andeep there has given a counter argument.

So you can see there some of the for and those against arguments in practise.

Let's have a look then at when the jury has been seen by the public to do well.

So the jury was applauded in the 2011 London Riots cases.

After the riots that took place in August 2011, thousands of suspects were put on trial, so huge number of suspects, as the police and government were working really hard to ensure justice.

And this meant that juries needed to work efficiently really quickly and really efficiently in numerous fast-tracked cases.

So cases that were brought to the court quickly.

They made sure that defendants received a fair trial but also that justice was served in that timely manner.

Despite the cases being high profile, the jury remained independent and impartial.

They balance fairness with severity and culpability, making distinctions between rioters who are breaking many public order offences and citizens who are being wrongly accused.

However, there have also been cases when the jury have been criticised.

So for example, in a 2013 speeding case, so Vicki Pryce was on trial for taking speeding points on behalf of her husband.

The jury struggled to understand key legal ideas and they asked questions that showed they were confused about the case.

Eventually, the judge decided to dismiss them, saying their lack of understanding was a major issue.

The jury was criticised because they failed to grasp basic legal concepts, suggesting that some jurors might not be suited for complex cases.

For example, they asked if they could make a decision based on their own feelings rather than the evidence which showed that they did not understand their role in reaching a fair verdict.

So you can see there are both examples of when the jury have been applauded and been seen to be a really positive thing.

And then, there's been other cases where perhaps the jury's been looked at as not being fit for purpose and not being quite as as good as it should be.

Juries play a key role in our justice system by allowing ordinary citizens to participate in delivering fair verdicts, making the system more democratic.

Serving on a jury is an important civic duty, ensuring that justice is decided by a group rather than just one judge.

However, juries can have flaws such as a lack of legal knowledge, potential bias, and inconsistency in decisions, which can sometimes lead to unfair outcomes.

Let's have a check for understanding.

Identify two potential positives and two potential negatives of using a jury.

For positives you might have said about civic duty, public participation, impartiality, trust in the system and secrecy of deliberations.

The negatives, you might have said, lack of legal knowledge, susceptible to bias, misconduct or inconsistency.

Task A, I'd like you to explain whether you agree or disagree with this statement.

So let's have a look at the statement together.

The jury plays a crucial role within our justice system and should be protected at all costs.

So that's a really strong for statement there, saying that the jury is really important and plays a really important role in our justice system.

So you need to state whether you agree or disagree with this statement.

But when you are explaining your answer, you need to ensure that you have considered the viewpoints of others.

So you need to make sure that you've also looked at the opposing viewpoint from your own.

So you need to give that balanced argument while also justifying whether you agree or disagree with this statement.

So pause while you have a go at Task A.

So for task A, when you were looking at the statement, the jury plays a crucial role in our justice system and should be protected at all costs, you may have agreed and you may have included something like this: Juries are essential to our justice system because they make it fair and more democratic by letting ordinary people have a say.

A single judge could be biassed, but a group decision is more balanced.

Juries also help people trust the system because they feel like justice is being done by their peers.

Some argue that juries can make mistakes or misunderstand the law, but this can happen with judges too.

Instead of abolishing juries, we should improve the way they are selected and trained to make sure they do their job properly.

So that might have been something that you could have come up with if you were agreeing.

However, if you were disagreeing you might have included something like this.

Juries can sometimes cause more harm than good because they do not have legal training and can be easily influenced by emotions or bias.

In serious cases, a wrong decision can ruin someone's life.

Judges, on the other hand, are experts in the law and can make fair and more informed decisions.

Some say that juries make the system more democratic.

But if they do not understand the law properly, they cannot deliver justice.

Instead of relying on juries, we should let trained professionals handle complex legal cases.

So we've had a look at the role of the jury and now we're going to have a look at what is the role of the magistrate or justice of the peace, JP.

So Andeep is asking, "What are magistrates and justices of the peace?" So pause while you have a think about this yourselves.

Magistrates and JPs volunteer in magistrate courts, which are courts that hear summary offences which are the lower level crimes.

They listen to the case in court and make a decision, in groups of three, there'll always be three, regarding the defendant's guilt.

Unlike in a Crown Court where the jury decides guilt and the judge passes a sentence, in a magistrate court, the magistrate JP carries both of those roles.

So they decide guilt and they also pass sentence.

There is always a legal advisor present to help them understand and apply the law correctly.

So Andeep's asking, "Well, who can be a magistrate or JP and what qualifications do they need?" So pause and think about this yourselves.

So magistrates or JPs must be over 18 and they must have good character and also be able to commit to 13 days a year so that they can carry out this volunteer role.

Adverts are made publicly often in local media for local people to apply.

This is a volunteer position.

Citizens with serious criminal records cannot apply and neither can people who are employed in a job that could be considered a conflict of interest.

So similar to a jury.

So for example, politicians, newspaper editors, or police officers would not be able to take on this role.

Magistrates or JPs do not have to have a legal background or legal qualifications.

They are provided with training once selected and have a legal advisor present who can support them with the law.

So if you'd like, just pause and have a little bit of a look at this diagram.

You'll be able to see that where it states B, we've got the three magistrates all sitting together there hearing the the case.

But you'll see in front of them, you've got the clerk.

So that is the legal advisor that will be able to support them.

So at any point in the case, they can have that communication backwards and forwards to make sure that they understand exactly what is happening.

Magistrates are unpaid volunteers as this helps to ensure that justice is accessible to everyone, not just legal professionals.

Using volunteers also brings a range of people into the justice system, as magistrates can be representative of wider society rather than solely using legal professionals.

It also allows ordinary citizens to contribute to their community, support the justice system, and contribute to enforcing and applying the law.

So Andeep's asking, "Why is it important that magistrates and JPs are volunteers? Why not pay them?" So pause and have a think about this question yourself.

Some people think the volunteer aspect prevents corruption as magistrates and JPs are not motivated by money.

So they're not doing this to get paid.

They're doing this because of their civic duty and they are wanting to support the justice system.

So they're taking the time out of their day, out of their busy lives, to actively support the justice system.

It likely also brings a wider range of life experiences, making the system more representative.

And it's also cost effective to use magistrates because ultimately, they're not being paid.

So therefore, it's what financial benefit to.

Let's have a check for understanding.

What are the missing words? Some people think the volunteer aspect prevents corruption as magistrates and JPs are not motivated by something.

Instead, they are carrying out the role as part of their something duty to support the justice system.

Let's see how you got on.

So some people think the volunteer aspect prevents corruption as magistrates and JPs are not motivated by money.

Instead, they are carrying out the role as a part of their civic duty to support the justice system.

Magistrates and JPs handle most criminal cases around 95%, ensuring that our justice system runs effectively.

And this also allows Crown Courts to deal with serious crimes such as murder.

And this means that they compliment the work of Crown Court judges because they ultimately free up their time to be able to hear those much more serious and complex cases.

Magistrates and JPs help local communities by dealing with criminal issues quickly and fairly.

They play an important role in our justice system.

But again, people have arguments both in favour of and against the role of magistrates and JPs.

So arguments for include the cost effective.

It means that it is not just legal professionals making those decisions.

It encourages people to carry out their civic duty.

And that it frees up Crown Court judges to deal with those more serious and complex cases.

In terms of against arguments, you've got that they've got a lack of legal training that statistically middle class and white citizens are more likely to become a magistrate or JP and that it could be inconsistency.

So let's have a look what our characters think.

So Jun is saying, "Magistrates and JPs lack legal training and rely on advisors which can slow decisions.

Their sentences can be consistent, and since most come from wealthier backgrounds, they may struggle to relate to poorer defendants." So that's a more detailed arguments about perhaps some concerns around using magistrates and JPs.

So let's listen to what Andeep's got to say.

He's saying, "Yes maybe, but magistrates and JPs are cost effective because they don't need expensive legal professionals.

They also allow regular people to take part in the justice system as part of their civic duty.

Plus they help free up crime court judges for more serious cases.

So there you can see a for and an against argument in a bit more detail.

Let's have a check for understanding.

Identify two potential positives and two potential negatives of using magistrates and JPs within our legal system.

For positives, you might have said that they're cost effective and not just legal professionals, they're civic duty and that they free up Crown Court judges for more serious cases.

But against negatives, you might have said their lack of legal training, that they're often middle class and white citizens, or inconsistency.

For Task B, I'd like you to read the statements and consider are they correct or incorrect? So let's read them together.

A is magistrates and JPs get paid the minimum wage.

B is magistrates and JPs supported by a legal advisor.

C magistrate courts hit 95% of criminal cases and D magistrates and JPs must have a law degree.

So consider these statements.

So let's get some feedback.

So magistrates and JPs get paid the minimum wage, that is incorrect.

Magistrates and JPs are supported by a legal advisor.

That was correct.

Magistrate courts hear 95% of criminal cases is correct and magistrates and JPs must have a law degree, was incorrect.

So the statements below were incorrect.

Can you explain why? So let's have a look at those together.

Magistrates and JPs get paid the minimum wage, that's incorrect.

And magistrates and JPs must have a law degree.

That was also incorrect.

So can you tell me why? So let's have a look why.

Magistrates and JPs get paid the minimum wage.

That's incorrect because the roles are voluntary.

People take them on as a part of their civic duty.

The second was magistrates and JPs must have a law degree, that's incorrect.

They will be provided with training when appointed and have the support of a legal advisor.

They do not need legal qualifications.

So in summary of the lesson, what key roles do citizens play within the criminal justice system? A jury is a group of 12 citizens selected to decide the outcome of a Crown Court trial based on the evidence presented.

Jury support the legal system by ensuring fair and impartial verdicts.

They represent the community and help uphold the principle that justice should be determined by citizen's peers.

A magistrate or JP handle summary cases within a magistrate court.

Magistrates support the legal system by ensuring justices administered efficiently.

They help create capacity in higher courts by resolving less serious cases.

That brings us to the end of today's lesson.

Well done for all your hard work and I hope that you'll back some more citizenship lessons in the future.