Notes

Here are three weaknesses of the UK jury system, supported by case law and detailed case information:

### 1. **Susceptibility to Media Influence**
Juries can be affected by pre-trial media coverage, which may create biases or preconceived notions about the case, especially in high-profile cases. This poses a risk to the fairness of the trial, as jurors may be influenced by information not presented in court.

**Case Law:**
*R v Taylor and Taylor* (1993) involved two sisters, Michelle and Lisa Taylor, who were charged with murder. During the trial, photographs from CCTV footage were published in newspapers, portraying the sisters in a misleading manner that suggested guilt. After their conviction, it was revealed that the jury had seen these prejudicial images, which had not been shown in court. The Court of Appeal quashed their convictions, acknowledging that the extensive media coverage may have influenced the jury’s verdict. This case highlights the jury’s vulnerability to external influence, especially in the age of pervasive media.

### 2. **Jury Misunderstanding of Complex Evidence**
Jurors often have no legal or technical expertise, which can make it difficult for them to fully grasp complex legal issues or technical evidence, leading to misinterpretation or incorrect verdicts.

**Case Law:**
*R v Pryce* (2013) is a notable example of a jury struggling with legal complexities. Vicky Pryce, the former wife of politician Chris Huhne, was on trial for perverting the course of justice by accepting penalty points for a speeding offense committed by Huhne. During deliberations, the jury sent the judge a series of questions indicating a fundamental misunderstanding of basic legal concepts, including questions about reasonable doubt and intent. The jury was discharged due to their inability to reach a verdict, and Pryce was retried with a new jury. This case highlights the challenge juries face when dealing with complex legal matters, raising concerns about their ability to deliver informed verdicts in such cases.

### 3. **Jury Tampering and Intimidation**
In certain cases, especially those involving organized crime, juries can be subject to intimidation or tampering, which can compromise their impartiality and the fairness of the trial. This can lead to wrongful verdicts or even the need for judge-only trials.

**Case Law:**
*R v Twomey & Others* (2009) involved the trial of four men accused of a large-scale armed robbery at Heathrow Airport. Due to previous attempts to tamper with the jury, including intimidation, the trial judge requested that the case proceed without a jury under Section 44 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, making it one of the rare cases in which a jury was not used due to the risk of interference. This case demonstrates the vulnerability of juries to external pressures, particularly in cases involving organized crime, and the potential need for alternative trial methods to ensure justice is served.

These cases illustrate some of the key weaknesses of the UK jury system, including susceptibility to media influence, difficulties in understanding complex cases, and vulnerability to intimidation or tampering.