http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2013/feb/21/vicky-pryce-case-jury-failure
The link is about a recent case report by Guardian. This case clearly identifies some inherent problem with jury system of criminal proceeding. Usually, the judge in the criminal trial plays a role of a referee by giving the jury direction to decide the matter because they are the final decision makers. There are some basic rules in every trial which have to be maintained- Burden of Proof, Standard of Proof and the direction by the Judge.
According to Woolmington v DPP , in every criminal case in the English legal system a golden thread has to be seen that the prosecution proves the prisoner is guilt. The onus is on the prosecution to prove the case against the defendant unless there is any exception to this rule. The exceptions are normally when the defendant raises any new defence in the trial (i.e. self-defence, duress, diminish responsibility, etc.) the burden is shifted on the defendant to prove the defence by adducing sufficient evidence. However, this burden of proof is not as grave as for the prosecution. It is enough to prove balance of probability whereas the prosecution has to prove on beyond reasonable doubt. Once the defendant has satisfied the court to establish his defence the burden is shifted on the prosecution to rebut the defence and prove the accused is guilty. In this case, the jury did not manage to grasp the principle properly as they were asking whether the defendant has to prove she is not guilty.
As mentioned earlier, the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt. However, when the burden of proof is on the defendant he can prove his case on the balance of probability. In the present case, the jury did not understand the standard which is evident from their questioning that what the wording 'reasonable doubt' mean.
Once both parties of the trial have finished giving their evidence, it is time for the judge to direct the jury to form their verdict. The judge directs on the basis of what they should reach the verdict. Most of them mainly follows the JSB (judicial studies board) direction which requires the judges to direct the jury such- on the basis of all the evidence resembled by the prosecution if you are 'beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty then you should find for the prosecution but if you have doubt about it then you should find not guilty. The judge can also use the wording like 'very sure' or 'pretty sure' ,according to R v Majid, if there is any difficulty among the jury to understand the wording 'beyond reasonable doubt'. In this case, the judge used the wording 'beyond reasonable doubt' what the jury could not apprehend properly and asked for further explanation. But, the judge did not explain it to the jury by using 'very sure' or 'pretty sure' about the prisoner's guilt. Obviously, the jury are the lay people and they don't have as much legal knowledge as a lawyer or the judge but the confusion regarding the direction in this particular case could have been avoided by using the alternative direction method.
Understanding these principles is essential as the failure can lead to a wrong conviction or aquittal of the accused.
