LETTERS Unqualified damage
Sir: Your leading article 'The jury is an ass' in your issue for 6 July draws attention to a situation which, for the past 20 years, has continued to be of increasing seriousness. To have permitted, as a result of ill-advised quasi-political legislation, the only qual- ification for jury service to be entirely related to age, even for the most complex cases, merits your severe criticism.
There are two areas of law which, more than most others, require a level of educa- tion, probity and a sense of responsibility for determination by the verdict of a jury, namely libel and fraud, yet both for the trial of libel actions and fraud proceedings special juries (those which require at least a property qualification) have been abo- lished.
The Juries Act 1949 abolished special juries for the trial of libel actions — a purely political measure following the trial of the action brought by Bessie Braddock, the Labour MP, for libel against the Bolton Evening News. The Bolton Evening News elected for trial by special jury. Mrs Braddock lost the action and the 1949 Act followed. This left actions for fraud still triable by a special jury, until special juries were finally abolished by the Courts Act 1971.
Since 1971, no educational property or character qualifications have been required for service on a jury for any trial, including trials for libel or fraud proceedings, with results for which judges and lawyers are often unfairly blamed. There is little doubt that some of the disproportionate and excessive awards of damages in libel ac- tions have been due to the lack of any qualifications or indication of financial responsibility being required of juries who are empanelled from a list based entirely on age.
Your article has drawn attention to the case for reform which is long overdue.
Peter F. Carter-Ruck 75 Shoe Lane, London EC4
Previous page
