Jury Deliberation Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Jury Deliberation - Essay Example "Research" in this instance could be wide and varied in meaning as there are other extrapolating questions with regards to jury deliberation itself. Are questions limited to the AC 1118 (protection of free debate in the jury room) only Are there other contradicting details about the jury process which the public must know and that should be properly acted upon Does "research" apply to the outsiders, or the jurors themselves As Section 8(1) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 provides: "(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, it is a contempt of court to obtain, disclose or solicit any particulars of statements made, opinions expressed, arguments advanced or votes cast by members of a jury in the course of their deliberations in any legal proceedings," making votes, discussions and other related issues on jury deliberations sacrosanct before the law. In this instance, it is against the law that jurors themselves impart any information or knowledge with regards to the case at hand, so that they are to live life like the case does not exist at all. And this is to allow implementation of AC 1118, of which may be interpreted as to protect the jurors, or the court decision, and the public in general. Court cases that have touched on the issue of "protection of free debate in the jury room" include Regina v. ... ion why or how come that in those cases where the court was informed of some misconduct on the part of jurors, steps were not done to rectify what has gone wrong (UKP, 2006). In the R v Mirza (2004) case, AC 1118 was also indicated of important clause as an important feature of the jury's work protecting "individual jurors from exposure to pressure to explain the reasons which had actuated them individually to arrive at their verdict," (House of Lords, 2005). Likewise, R v Young Stephen (Bar Council, 2006) has also been mentioned as one of the most notorious case. Incidentally, it was emphasized in a report that section 8 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 on disclosing or obtaining information relating to jury room deliberations were addressed to third parties (Procter, 2006) in the discussion mentioned. One example of this contradictory deliberation was the case "Her Majesty's Attorney General (Respondent) v. Scotcher (Appellant) (Criminal Appeal from Her Majesty's High Court of Justice) of which one Keith Scotcher has been charged of contempt of court. In the deliberation, it was established that appellant Scotcher was summoned for jury service in January 2000 for a case against two brothers criminally charged. In February 20 of that same year, an anonymous letter was sent to the mother of the two defendants in the criminal case of which contents include among others: "Dear Mrs Anderson I was the one jury member who held out against the prosecution case at the trial of [A] and [B]. I would like you to seriously consider, as I'm sure you are already, talking to your counsels about appealing the convictions on the grounds of an unsafe conviction, miscarriage of justice, or whatever. [XXXX] When we first went out the voting was close XXXX. Many changed their vote