Trial by Jury in England and Wales: Jury Selection, Directions, and Verdicts

Trial by Jury in England and Wales: Jury Selection, Directions, and Verdicts

Introduction

Trial by jury is one of the most recognisable institutions of the criminal justice system in England and Wales. In cases tried on indictment in the Crown Court, a group of ordinary members of the public is ordinarily responsible for determining whether the prosecution has proved the defendant’s guilt. The judge presides over the trial, rules on questions of law and evidence, explains the legal principles that the jury must apply, and manages the proceedings. The jury listens to the evidence, evaluates the facts, and reaches a verdict according to the law and the evidence presented in court.

This division of responsibility is fundamental. The judge does not ordinarily decide the defendant’s guilt in a jury trial, and the jury does not determine the legal rules governing the case. The judge must ensure that the trial is conducted lawfully and fairly, while the jury must decide the factual issues entrusted to it without substituting speculation, personal prejudice, or outside information for the evidence.

Jury trial is not used in every criminal case. Most criminal proceedings begin in the magistrates’ courts, and many offences are dealt with there. The Crown Court conducts trials for indictable-only offences and for either-way offences allocated or sent there under the applicable procedures. Certain exceptional statutory circumstances also permit a Crown Court trial without a jury. The legal framework must therefore be understood alongside the rules governing criminal jurisdiction and allocation.

The principal legislation regulating jury service and the constitution of juries is the Juries Act 1974. The selection and trial process is also governed by the Criminal Procedure Rules, particularly Part 25, which addresses trial and sentence in the Crown Court, and Part 26, which concerns jurors. The Criminal Practice Directions provide further guidance on the conduct of criminal proceedings, including jury directions and the management of trials.

The modern jury system involves more than drawing twelve names at random. Potential jurors must satisfy the legal requirements for service. The court must address challenges to the selection of individual jurors where legally justified, ensure that jurors understand their responsibilities, prevent improper outside influence, and provide directions that enable the jury to apply the correct law to the facts. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury must deliberate independently and return a verdict in accordance with the applicable rules.

This article explains the legal framework governing jury trials in England and Wales, the selection and qualification of jurors, the judge’s role in directing the jury, the rules governing deliberations and verdicts, and the safeguards intended to preserve impartiality and fairness.

Facts: The Essential Legal Framework

The principal legal sources include the following:

• The Juries Act 1974, which regulates jury qualification, selection, the continuation of trials where a juror is discharged, and majority verdicts.
• The Criminal Procedure Rules 2025, Part 25, which governs trial and sentence in the Crown Court, including the selection of juries.
• The Criminal Procedure Rules 2025, Part 26, which deals with jurors and their responsibilities.
• The Criminal Practice Directions 2023, as amended, which provide further guidance on criminal trial practice, including jury directions.
• The Human Rights Act 1998 and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which provide important context for the right to a fair hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal.
• The Contempt of Court Act 1981, which forms part of the legal framework protecting the administration of justice.

The jury system also operates within the wider criminal procedure framework, including rules on evidence, disclosure, legal representation, and the burden and standard of proof.

The precise rules applicable to a particular trial depend on the offence, the court’s jurisdiction, the procedural stage, and any exceptional order or statutory provision affecting the trial.

1. The Purpose of Trial by Jury

1.1 The jury as the finder of fact

The central function of a jury in a criminal trial is to determine the facts relevant to the charge.

The prosecution presents evidence intended to establish that the defendant committed the alleged offence. The defence may challenge that evidence, present an alternative account, dispute identification, question the reliability of witnesses, or argue that the prosecution has failed to prove one or more elements of the offence.

The jury must evaluate the competing accounts and decide whether the prosecution has proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The jury does not have to accept a witness’s testimony merely because the witness gave evidence under oath. It may consider whether the witness had a proper opportunity to observe the event, whether the account is consistent with other evidence, whether it contains contradictions, and whether there are reasons to doubt its reliability.

Equally, jurors must not reject evidence merely because it differs from their personal expectations or experiences. Their task is to assess the evidence fairly, within the legal framework explained by the judge.

1.2 The judge’s responsibility for the law

The judge is responsible for explaining the law that governs the case and ensuring that the trial proceeds according to the applicable legal rules.

For example, in a theft trial, the judge must identify the legal elements of theft and explain what the prosecution must prove. The jury then determines whether the evidence establishes those elements beyond reasonable doubt.

If a legal issue arises about the admissibility of a confession, the judge determines that issue under the applicable law. The jury should not use a statement that the judge has excluded as evidence of guilt.

The judge also rules on procedural questions, gives directions concerning the evaluation of evidence, and may withdraw a case from the jury if the prosecution evidence is legally insufficient to leave a proper case for the jury to consider.

The division of responsibility is therefore not absolute in the sense that the judge has no influence over the trial’s evidential boundaries. Rather, the judge determines the legal framework within which the jury performs its fact-finding role.

1.3 Why jury trial matters

Jury trial places an important part of the decision-making process in the hands of members of the public rather than leaving every factual decision to a professional judge or a state official.

The system is associated with public participation, collective deliberation, and the separation of legal instruction from factual judgment. A jury can bring different experiences and perspectives to the assessment of evidence, although it must apply the law rather than personal assumptions.

The jury is not expected to investigate the case independently, conduct its own research, or substitute public opinion for evidence. Its role is limited to deciding the issues properly presented during the trial.

Jury trial also carries practical challenges. Trials may be lengthy, evidence can be complex, and jurors must assess competing accounts without discussing the case with outsiders. The judge’s directions, the parties’ presentations, the rules governing evidence, and the restrictions on juror conduct are designed to help jurors discharge this responsibility.

2. Which Criminal Cases Are Tried by Jury?

2.1 The Crown Court

Jury trials principally take place in the Crown Court. The Crown Court deals with indictable-only offences, which are too serious to be tried in the magistrates’ courts, and with certain either-way offences that proceed to trial in the Crown Court.

Examples of offences commonly tried by a jury in the Crown Court include murder, rape, robbery, and serious cases of burglary or fraud, depending on the precise charge and procedural circumstances.

The fact that an offence is serious does not mean that every stage of the proceedings is conducted before a jury. Preliminary hearings, case management, applications about evidence, and other procedural matters may be dealt with by a judge before the jury is selected or in its absence.

A defendant may also plead guilty, in which case there is ordinarily no need for a jury to determine guilt. The court will then proceed according to the relevant sentencing procedure.

2.2 Summary offences and magistrates’ courts

Many criminal offences are dealt with summarily by magistrates. In these proceedings, a jury is not ordinarily involved. The magistrates, or a District Judge sitting in the magistrates’ court, determine the facts and apply the law.

The allocation of either-way offences depends on the statutory framework and the relevant procedural decisions. The seriousness of the alleged offence, the court’s sentencing powers, and the applicable allocation rules may affect whether a case is tried in the magistrates’ court or the Crown Court.

It is therefore inaccurate to assume that all criminal trials in England and Wales involve juries.

2.3 Exceptional trials without a jury

Although jury trial is the ordinary model for contested Crown Court trials, legislation provides for certain exceptions.

Under sections 44 and 46 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, a judge may order a trial without a jury in specified circumstances involving a danger of jury tampering or where jury tampering appears to have taken place. The statutory conditions and procedure must be satisfied; the power is not a general discretion to dispense with a jury merely because a case is difficult or attracts public attention.

There are also statutory provisions permitting certain counts to be tried without a jury after a jury has tried sample counts, in defined circumstances. These arrangements are intended to address particular procedural problems rather than to replace jury trial as the ordinary model.

The existence of exceptions demonstrates that jury trial operates within a statutory framework. It is not an absolute requirement that every contested criminal case in the Crown Court must be decided by a jury irrespective of the circumstances.

3. Qualification for Jury Service

3.1 The statutory framework

Eligibility for jury service is governed principally by the Juries Act 1974, as amended.

Potential jurors are generally selected from the electoral register and summoned through the jury summoning process. The system uses random selection to create a pool of people who may be required to attend court.

Being summoned does not mean that a person will necessarily serve on a particular jury. A summoned person may not attend on the date requested if excused or deferred in accordance with the rules, may not be selected for a particular trial, or may be found ineligible or disqualified under the relevant legal provisions.

The qualification rules are statutory. Courts and parties must not invent additional categories of disqualification simply because they consider a person’s background or occupation undesirable.

3.2 Disqualification and ineligibility

The Juries Act distinguishes between qualification, disqualification, and ineligibility.

Disqualification can arise under statutory rules relating to criminal convictions and sentences, including specified circumstances involving imprisonment, suspended sentences, and community orders. The precise consequences depend on the applicable statutory provisions and the person’s circumstances.

Ineligibility rules also apply to certain persons, including particular categories of judicial officeholders and others identified by legislation. These provisions reflect the need to maintain the proper functioning and impartiality of the justice system.

It is important not to assume that every person who has ever been convicted of an offence is permanently disqualified from jury service. The legal consequences depend on the nature of the conviction, the sentence, the applicable statutory conditions, and any relevant amendments.

Similarly, a person’s occupation or public profile does not automatically disqualify them unless a legal rule provides for that result.

3.3 Understanding the proceedings

A person summoned for jury service must be capable of participating effectively in the jury process. The Criminal Procedure Rules provide for the court to address circumstances in which a potential juror has insufficient understanding of English to perform the role effectively.

This requirement is connected to the need for jurors to understand the evidence, legal directions, and deliberations. A person who cannot adequately understand the language used in the trial may be unable to perform the required function.

The court must address the issue through the applicable procedure rather than treating language ability as an informal preference.

3.4 Excusal and deferral

A summoned person may have circumstances that make attendance difficult or impossible at the requested time. The rules provide procedures for applications to be excused from jury service or for service to be deferred.

Such requests may involve significant personal or practical circumstances, but they are dealt with under the applicable rules rather than by an automatic entitlement to exemption.

The relevant authority may require supporting information and will decide the application according to the governing criteria. A person should follow the instructions accompanying the summons and any official guidance about requesting an excusal or deferral.

The official government explanation of the process is available in GOV.UK’s guide to jury service.

4. Summoning Potential Jurors

4.1 Random selection from the electoral register

The jury summoning process is designed to draw potential jurors from a broad pool of eligible members of the public.

The names of potential jurors are selected at random from electoral registers, subject to the legal framework governing jury service. Those summoned must respond to the summons and follow the instructions provided.

Random selection is important because it reduces the risk that the prosecution, defence, or court administration could hand-pick the individuals who will decide a particular case.

It does not guarantee that every jury will perfectly represent the population’s social or demographic composition. Nor does it mean that each person summoned will ultimately sit on a jury. It provides the statutory method for creating the pool from which juries are selected.

4.2 Attendance at court

A person who receives a jury summons must respond as directed. The summons provides information about attendance and the steps that must be taken if the person cannot attend.

On arrival, potential jurors may be assigned to a panel from which individual juries will be selected. The court may need several juries during a court sitting, and not every person attending will necessarily be chosen for the same case.

The jury administration process aims to ensure that a sufficient number of eligible people are available for the trials scheduled at that court.

4.3 Random selection in the courtroom

Rule 25.6 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2025 governs the selection of a jury in relevant Crown Court trials.

The jury is selected from the panel, or part of the panel, summoned to attend at the relevant time and place. The names are drawn at random, and the selection is announced in open court, subject to the rule’s provisions concerning the use of identifying numbers where necessary.

The rule also addresses situations in which the available panel is insufficient to constitute a jury and permits the court to exercise specified powers to summon additional people in the courtroom or vicinity.

The selection process is therefore regulated by formal procedural rules. It is not left to informal negotiation between the parties or to the personal preference of the judge.

5. The Constitution of the Jury

5.1 The ordinary twelve-person jury

A jury in a Crown Court criminal trial ordinarily consists of twelve jurors.

The jury is constituted through the prescribed selection process, and each selected juror must take an oath or make an affirmation. The juror thereby undertakes to try the defendant faithfully and return a true verdict according to the evidence.

The wording of the oath or affirmation is prescribed by the Criminal Procedure Rules, reflecting the seriousness of the juror’s responsibility.

The jury must be constituted in accordance with the applicable legal requirements. The number and status of jurors can become important if a juror becomes ill, is discharged, or is found unable to continue.

5.2 Longer trials and additional jurors

Rule 25.6 permits a jury to begin with as many as fourteen jurors where the court expects the trial to last for more than four weeks.

The purpose is to provide a limited safeguard against the disruption that might arise if one or more jurors become unable to continue before the prosecution evidence begins.

The rule requires the court to explain why additional jurors have been selected and how vacancies will be filled. If the trial begins with more than twelve jurors, the additional jurors may fill vacancies among the first twelve before the prosecution evidence begins, in the prescribed order. Any additional jurors remaining must be discharged by no later than the beginning of the prosecution evidence.

This arrangement should not be confused with a permanent fourteen-person jury. The ordinary jury remains twelve, and the additional jurors are selected to provide a limited safeguard against early vacancies.

5.3 Oaths and affirmations

Each juror must take an oath or make an affirmation in accordance with the law.

An oath is a solemn undertaking made in the form prescribed by the relevant rules. An affirmation allows a juror to make a solemn declaration instead of swearing an oath.

The legal significance is the undertaking to perform the role faithfully and return a verdict according to the evidence. The rules accommodate both forms, and the choice between them does not alter the juror’s fundamental responsibilities.

5.4 A juror’s duty after selection

Once sworn or affirmed, a juror must follow the judge’s directions and comply with the legal restrictions governing jury conduct.

A juror must listen to the evidence, consider the arguments presented, avoid independent investigation, and refrain from discussing the case with people outside the jury in ways that could compromise the trial.

The jury must decide the case collectively through deliberation, but each juror retains the responsibility to reach an honest conclusion based on the evidence and the law.

The duty is not to support a particular party, please the judge, or conform to the views of other jurors. It is to determine the issues fairly and independently.

6. Challenges to Potential Jurors

6.1 The principle of impartial selection

The random selection of jurors is subject to limited legal procedures that allow objections to the selection of a particular person.

These procedures are designed to protect the impartiality of the jury, not to allow the parties to construct a jury based on subjective preferences about the personal characteristics or presumed attitudes of potential jurors.

The parties must act within the statutory and procedural framework. An objection cannot be justified merely by a belief that a particular juror may be sympathetic to the prosecution or defence because of their occupation, appearance, background, or perceived social views.

6.2 Challenge for cause

A challenge for cause is a formal objection to a potential juror based on a legally relevant reason that may make the person unsuitable to serve in the case.

The objection must be supported by an adequate basis and determined under the applicable procedure. It may arise, for example, where there is a proper basis for believing that a potential juror has a relevant connection with the defendant, a witness, or another matter that creates a concern about impartiality.

The court must consider the objection in accordance with the law. The existence of a personal connection does not necessarily mean that a juror is automatically disqualified; the nature of the connection and its implications must be examined.

The purpose is to protect the integrity of the trial by ensuring that jurors can perform their function impartially.

6.3 The prosecution’s right to ask a juror to stand by

The prosecution has a limited procedure commonly known as the right to ask a potential juror to “stand by”. The procedure is subject to the relevant law and is not an unrestricted power to reject any juror without justification.

The Crown Prosecution Service’s guidance on jury vetting emphasises that challenges and requests to stand by must be exercised within the defined legal framework and with due regard to the requirement of an independent and impartial tribunal.

The rules governing these procedures are set out in the Criminal Procedure Rules, including the provisions concerning the selection of juries. The relevant CPS guidance is available at Jury Vetting.

6.4 No general right to choose a favourable jury

The modern system does not give the parties an unrestricted right to select jurors according to whether they appear favourable to one side.

The principle of random selection is central. Challenges are permitted only within the applicable legal framework and must not be treated as an opportunity to manipulate the jury’s composition.

This protects the distinction between legitimate scrutiny of impartiality and improper attempts to influence the identity of the people who will decide the case.

7. Jury Vetting and the Protection of Impartiality

7.1 The meaning of jury vetting

Jury vetting refers to checks or inquiries concerning potential jurors in circumstances where such checks are legally permitted.

The general principle is that jurors should be selected at random from the panel, subject to lawful qualification rules and any proper challenge procedure. The prosecution cannot simply conduct unrestricted investigations into every potential juror because a case is serious or attracts public attention.

The CPS guidance recognises that more detailed checks may be appropriate in exceptional cases, subject to the applicable authorisation and criteria.

7.2 Why checks may be necessary

In some cases, a particular risk may justify further inquiry into whether a potential juror is legally qualified or whether there is a properly grounded concern about impartiality or jury tampering.

Any such inquiry must be conducted within the applicable legal framework. It should not become a means of screening jurors for their personal beliefs or attempting to identify individuals who might be expected to favour one party.

The purpose is to safeguard the fairness of the trial, not to undermine random selection.

7.3 The importance of transparency and limits

The use of jury checks raises important questions about privacy, fairness, and the risk of arbitrary exclusion.

The law therefore places limits on the circumstances in which checks may be carried out and on the way the results may be used.

Where an objection is made to a juror, the relevant legal procedure must be followed. The court must preserve the principle that the defendant is tried by an independent and impartial tribunal.

8. The Judge’s Role During the Trial

8.1 Managing the proceedings

The judge controls the conduct of the trial and ensures that the proceedings comply with the law.

This includes deciding legal applications, ruling on the admissibility of evidence, managing the order of proceedings, ensuring that witnesses are treated appropriately, and giving directions to the jury.

The judge must remain impartial. Although the judge may intervene to clarify evidence or control questioning, the judge must not act as an advocate for either party.

The prosecution bears the burden of proving the charge, and the defence must have a fair opportunity to challenge the prosecution case.

8.2 Rulings on evidence

Questions about whether evidence may be admitted are generally for the judge to determine under the applicable law.

For example, if the defence challenges a confession under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the judge must determine the relevant admissibility issue. If evidence is excluded, the jury must not use it in deciding guilt.

Where the legal issue requires a separate hearing, the judge may deal with it in the jury’s absence. This prevents jurors from being exposed to material that they are not entitled to consider.

The judge’s evidential rulings define the material that the jury may lawfully use in reaching its verdict.

8.3 Ensuring a fair trial

The judge must ensure that the trial is conducted fairly and that the jury receives appropriate legal guidance.

This may require correcting a misunderstanding about the law, directing the jury to disregard inadmissible material, explaining how a particular kind of evidence should be assessed, or reminding jurors that the defendant is presumed innocent.

If an event occurs that threatens the fairness of the proceedings, the judge must consider the appropriate response under the law. Depending on the circumstances, that may involve an additional direction, an adjournment, the discharge of a juror, or, in a sufficiently serious case, termination of the trial.

The response must be proportionate to the problem and consistent with the governing procedural rules.

9. Jury Directions: Meaning and Purpose

9.1 What is a jury direction?

A jury direction is an instruction from the judge explaining the law or the approach the jury must take to a particular issue.

Directions are essential because jurors are not expected to possess professional legal training. They must be given sufficient guidance to understand the elements of the offence, the burden and standard of proof, and any specific legal issue raised by the evidence.

A direction may explain the legal meaning of an offence, identify the facts that must be proved, or tell the jury how to approach a disputed issue such as identification, intent, self-defence, or the reliability of a confession.

The judge must ensure that the directions accurately state the law and are adapted to the actual issues in the case.

9.2 Directions are not the judge’s verdict

A judge’s direction must not be confused with a finding that the defendant is guilty or not guilty.

The judge explains the law and the legal framework for assessing the evidence. The jury applies that framework to the facts and reaches its verdict.

The judge may summarise the evidence and identify the principal arguments advanced by the prosecution and defence, but must do so fairly. The jury must not be misled into thinking that the judge has already determined the factual issues it is required to decide.

9.3 Timing of directions

Directions may be given at different stages of a trial, depending on what is required.

A judge may explain certain legal principles before evidence is called, provide guidance before or after particular evidence, and give final directions after the evidence and closing speeches.

The Criminal Practice Directions recognise that legal directions should be provided at a time that assists the jury in evaluating the evidence. Directions need not always be postponed until the very end of the trial if an earlier explanation would help jurors understand a relevant issue.

The timing and content of directions depend on the case, the legal issues, and the needs of the jury.

10. The Burden and Standard of Proof

10.1 The prosecution’s burden

In a criminal trial, the prosecution ordinarily bears the burden of proving the defendant’s guilt.

The defendant is presumed innocent unless and until guilt is proved in accordance with the law. The defendant does not ordinarily have to prove innocence or establish an alternative account of events.

The judge must explain the burden of proof to the jury and ensure that jurors understand that it remains with the prosecution.

This principle is particularly important where the defendant has given no evidence or has chosen not to answer questions. The jury must not treat the absence of a defence account as automatically establishing guilt.

Any statutory exception or rule affecting a burden of proof must be addressed accurately, but the ordinary starting point remains that the prosecution must prove the charge.

10.2 Beyond reasonable doubt

The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This standard reflects the seriousness of criminal conviction and the presumption of innocence.

The judge may explain the standard in language appropriate to the case, while avoiding formulations that distort the legal test.

The jury is not required to eliminate every imaginable possibility of innocence. It must, however, be sure of the defendant’s guilt before returning a guilty verdict.

A reasonable doubt is not simply any doubt that a juror can invent. It is a doubt grounded in a rational assessment of the evidence and the issues that the prosecution must prove.

10.3 Applying the standard to each element

The jury must consider whether the prosecution has proved the legal elements of the offence.

For example, in a theft case, the jury must apply the legal definition of theft and consider the evidence relevant to the required elements. In a case involving an allegation of assault, the jury must apply the relevant legal definition and assess the evidence in light of the directions given.

The jury must not return a guilty verdict simply because it believes the defendant behaved badly, appears suspicious, or may have committed some other wrongdoing.

The question is whether the charged offence has been proved in accordance with the law.

11. Directions on the Evidence

11.1 Witness credibility and reliability

The judge may give directions concerning the assessment of witnesses where the case requires them.

Jurors may consider a witness’s opportunity to observe events, memory, consistency, ability to communicate, and possible reasons for giving a particular account. They may also consider whether the witness’s evidence is supported or contradicted by other material.

Credibility and reliability are related but distinct. A witness may be honest but mistaken. Another may give an account that appears consistent but is contradicted by objective evidence.

The jury must evaluate the evidence fairly and should not assume that confidence, emotion, hesitation, or presentation alone conclusively establishes whether a witness is telling the truth.

11.2 Identification evidence

Identification evidence can raise particular risks where a witness claims to recognise the defendant as the person responsible for an offence.

The judge may need to give a specific direction concerning the circumstances of the identification, the witness’s opportunity to observe, the conditions under which the identification was made, and any relevant weaknesses in the evidence.

The purpose is not to tell the jury automatically to accept or reject identification evidence. It is to ensure that jurors understand the issues that may affect its reliability.

The precise direction depends on the evidence and the legal principles applicable to the case.

11.3 Confessions

Where the jury is permitted to consider a confession, the judge may need to explain the circumstances in which it was made and any relevant issues concerning its interpretation or reliability.

If a confession has been excluded by the judge, the jury must not use it as evidence of guilt. If only part of a statement is admissible, the judge must ensure that the jury understands the limits on its use.

A confession should not be treated as automatically conclusive. Its meaning must be considered alongside the other evidence and the legal directions.

11.4 Hearsay evidence

Where hearsay evidence is admitted, the judge may need to explain the limitations arising from the absence of the original speaker or the inability to test the account through cross-examination.

The jury should understand that admission does not guarantee reliability. It must consider the evidence in light of the circumstances in which the statement was made, the available supporting evidence, and the issues identified during the trial.

The exact direction depends on the type of hearsay and the legal basis for its admission.

11.5 Circumstantial evidence

Circumstantial evidence consists of facts from which the jury may draw inferences about another fact in issue.

For example, evidence of a defendant’s presence near the scene, possession of property, or communications before an offence may form part of a circumstantial case.

Circumstantial evidence is not inherently inferior to direct evidence. The jury must assess the individual items and the inferences that may reasonably be drawn from them.

The judge should ensure that the jury understands the legal test and does not treat suspicion as proof. The prosecution must still establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

12. The Judge’s Summing-Up

12.1 What is a summing-up?

At the conclusion of the evidence and closing speeches, the judge ordinarily provides a summing-up. This brings together the legal directions and the principal factual issues that the jury must resolve.

The summing-up is a critical stage because it provides the jury with a structured explanation of the law and the questions it must answer.

It generally identifies the elements of the offence, explains the burden and standard of proof, summarises the relevant evidence, and addresses the principal arguments advanced by each side.

The content and length of the summing-up depend on the complexity of the case. A straightforward trial may require relatively brief directions, while a long fraud or homicide trial may require extensive guidance.

12.2 Fairness and balance

The judge must summarise the evidence fairly. The judge should not present the prosecution case as established fact or dismiss the defence case without a proper legal basis.

The jury must understand both the evidence supporting the prosecution and the material issues raised by the defence.

A fair summing-up does not require every detail to be repeated. The judge may focus on the evidence and arguments relevant to the issues the jury must decide, provided the summary is accurate and does not materially distort the case.

12.3 Written directions and aids

In appropriate cases, the judge may provide written directions, written questions, or other aids to assist the jury.

Written material can be particularly useful where the trial involves several defendants, numerous counts, complex legal elements, or a substantial body of documentary evidence.

Any written aid must be consistent with the judge’s legal directions and must not create confusion about the issues to be decided.

The Criminal Practice Directions address the provision of directions and written material to juries. The aim is to help jurors apply the law accurately without replacing their independent assessment of the evidence.

13. The Jury’s Deliberations

13.1 Private deliberation

After receiving the relevant directions, the jury retires to consider its verdict.

Deliberations take place privately. This allows jurors to discuss the evidence and reach a decision without outside interference or public pressure.

The privacy of deliberations is an important feature of the jury system. It supports candid discussion and protects jurors from pressure to disclose how they reached their decision.

However, privacy does not authorise jurors to disregard the law, conduct their own investigations, or rely on information obtained outside the proceedings.

13.2 Collective decision-making

Jurors should consider the evidence individually and participate in a genuine collective assessment of the case.

A juror may change their view after listening to the reasoning of others. That is part of the purpose of deliberation. However, jurors must not simply adopt the majority view because they feel uncomfortable disagreeing.

The jury’s task is to reach a verdict according to the evidence and the law, not to achieve agreement at any cost.

The foreperson helps communicate the jury’s verdict to the court, but does not possess a superior vote or independent authority to determine the outcome.

13.3 Questions from the jury

During deliberations, the jury may ask the judge questions about the evidence, legal directions, or the procedure for returning a verdict.

The judge must consider the question and provide an appropriate response. Depending on the issue, the judge may repeat or clarify a direction, provide additional guidance, or address a point of law.

The response should be given through the proper court procedure, with the parties informed and able to make submissions where appropriate.

The judge must avoid answering a question in a way that improperly influences the jury’s factual decision.

13.4 The judge must not direct the jury to reach a particular factual verdict

The judge can explain the law and identify the issues that require determination, but the jury must make its own factual decision.

A judge may, in appropriate circumstances, withdraw a case from the jury if there is no sufficient evidence on which a properly directed jury could convict. That is a legal decision about whether the case may proceed, not a substitution of the judge’s factual verdict for the jury’s.

Once the case is properly left to the jury, the factual conclusion is for the jury to reach within the legal framework.

14. Misconduct and Improper Influence During Deliberations

14.1 Independent research

Jurors must not conduct independent research into the case.

They must not search the internet for information about the defendant, witnesses, the alleged offence, or legal issues relevant to the trial. They must not visit locations connected with the case, investigate a witness’s background independently, or use outside information to supplement the evidence presented in court.

Independent research can introduce untested material into deliberations and deprive the parties of an opportunity to challenge it. It may also lead jurors to rely on inaccurate, irrelevant, or prejudicial information.

The Criminal Procedure Rules require jurors to receive information about these prohibitions and warn that breaches may constitute criminal offences or contempt of court.

14.2 Communication with outsiders

Jurors must not discuss the case with people outside the jury in a manner that could compromise the trial.

A family member, friend, colleague, or online contact may have an opinion about the defendant or the alleged offence. That opinion is not evidence and must not influence the jury’s decision.

Jurors should not disclose confidential deliberations or invite outside people to help determine guilt.

If a juror is approached or improperly contacted about the case, the matter should be brought to the court’s attention through the appropriate procedure.

14.3 Media reports and social media

Jurors must not use media coverage or social-media discussion to supplement the evidence presented at trial.

A highly publicised case may generate extensive commentary, photographs, speculation, or claims about the defendant’s background. None of that material becomes evidence merely because it is publicly available.

The jury must decide the case on the evidence admitted in court and the legal directions given by the judge.

This restriction is especially important in cases where media coverage is intense or where the public may have formed opinions before the trial begins.

14.4 Improper influence and jury tampering

Attempts to influence jurors improperly can threaten the fairness and integrity of a criminal trial.

Jury tampering may involve intimidation, threats, bribery, or other conduct intended to affect a juror’s decision or interfere with the jury’s proper function.

The law provides mechanisms for dealing with suspected tampering, including exceptional procedures that may permit a trial to proceed without a jury where the statutory conditions are met.

The court must assess the situation carefully. A mere allegation of outside influence does not automatically justify abandoning the jury process, but a substantiated risk may require serious intervention.

15. Majority Verdicts

15.1 Unanimity and majority decision-making

A jury may reach a unanimous verdict, meaning that all jurors agree. However, the law in England and Wales also permits majority verdicts in defined circumstances.

The relevant provisions are contained in section 17 of the Juries Act 1974.

For a jury of twelve, a majority verdict may be accepted where ten jurors agree. Where a jury has been reduced to eleven jurors, ten must agree. Where ten jurors remain, nine must agree.

These statutory thresholds mean that a majority verdict does not simply mean that any numerical majority is sufficient. The minimum number of jurors agreeing must satisfy the applicable statutory requirements.

15.2 The judge’s direction before a majority verdict

A majority verdict is not ordinarily accepted immediately after the jury first retires.

The judge must allow a period of deliberation considered reasonable having regard to the nature and complexity of the case. Section 17 also imposes a minimum deliberation period of two hours before a majority verdict may be accepted in the circumstances covered by the provision.

The judge must follow the applicable procedure before inviting or accepting a majority verdict. The jury should not be pressured to abandon a genuine disagreement simply to reach a conclusion quickly.

The purpose of the rules is to preserve meaningful deliberation while avoiding the possibility that a trial must invariably end without a verdict whenever complete unanimity cannot be achieved.

15.3 Reporting the numbers

Where the Crown Court accepts a guilty verdict by majority, the foreperson must state in open court the number of jurors who agreed with and dissented from the verdict, as required by section 17.

The statutory requirements must be followed when the verdict is returned. The court must be satisfied that the conditions for accepting the majority verdict have been met.

15.4 A majority verdict is still a verdict of the jury

A majority verdict is not a verdict imposed by the judge. It is a decision reached by the jury in accordance with the statutory rule.

The judge does not choose which side of the disagreement should prevail. The jury must reach its decision through deliberation and apply the legal directions.

The statutory provision can be consulted directly in section 17 of the Juries Act 1974.

16. Hung Juries and the Absence of a Verdict

16.1 When the jury cannot agree

A jury may be unable to reach a verdict even after adequate deliberation.

If the jury cannot agree, the judge must consider the appropriate procedural response. The court may provide further directions or allow additional time where appropriate. If the jury remains unable to reach a verdict and the relevant conditions are met, the judge may discharge it.

A jury that cannot reach a verdict is commonly described as a hung jury.

The term does not mean that the defendant has been found guilty or not guilty. It means that the jury has failed to reach the required verdict.

16.2 The judge’s role in addressing disagreement

The judge must avoid placing improper pressure on jurors to agree.

A direction may remind jurors to continue considering the evidence and listening to one another’s reasoning, but it must not suggest that a juror should abandon a genuine view merely to produce a verdict.

The decision to discharge the jury depends on the circumstances, including the length and complexity of the trial, the period of deliberation, and the indications given by the jury.

16.3 What happens after a hung jury?

Where a jury is discharged without reaching a verdict, the prosecution may consider whether to seek a retrial, subject to the applicable law and the circumstances of the case.

A retrial is not the same as an automatic continuation of the original trial. The court must deal with the matter through the appropriate procedural process.

The decision to retry a case may involve considerations concerning the evidence, the reasons the original trial ended, the public interest, and the applicable prosecutorial and procedural rules.

A hung jury should therefore be distinguished from an acquittal. An acquittal ordinarily means that the jury has returned a not-guilty verdict on the charge, whereas a hung jury has returned no verdict on the unresolved issue.

17. Returning the Verdict

17.1 The foreperson’s role

When the jury has reached a verdict, it returns to court and communicates its decision through the foreperson or another juror designated in accordance with the procedure.

The verdict is delivered in open court. The court must ensure that the verdict is recorded and that any required clarification is obtained.

The foreperson does not decide the case independently. The role is to communicate the jury’s collective decision in the prescribed manner.

17.2 Guilty and not-guilty verdicts

In a criminal trial, the principal verdicts on a charge are guilty and not guilty.

A guilty verdict means that the jury has determined that the prosecution proved the charge to the required standard under the judge’s directions.

A not-guilty verdict means that the prosecution has failed to establish guilt to the required standard. It does not necessarily mean that the jury has positively established the defendant’s innocence or determined exactly what happened.

The legal significance of the verdict must be distinguished from any personal belief that a juror may hold about the events.

17.3 Multiple counts and multiple defendants

A trial may involve several charges or several defendants. The jury must consider the relevant issues separately and return verdicts as required by the directions and the indictment.

A finding concerning one count does not automatically determine another count. Similarly, evidence against one defendant must not be treated as automatically establishing the guilt of another.

The judge must provide directions that make clear which evidence and legal elements relate to each charge and defendant.

In a complex trial, written questions or a structured route to verdict may help the jury address the issues systematically.

17.4 The court’s response to the verdict

If the jury returns a guilty verdict, the court proceeds to sentencing in accordance with the law. The judge determines the appropriate sentence, subject to the applicable statutory framework and sentencing principles.

If the jury returns a not-guilty verdict, the defendant is acquitted of the charge. The court must record the outcome and deal with any consequential procedural matters.

The judge does not ordinarily replace a jury’s properly returned verdict with a different factual conclusion simply because the judge would have evaluated the evidence differently.

The system depends on respecting the division between the jury’s fact-finding role and the judge’s legal and sentencing responsibilities.

18. Discharge of a Juror During the Trial

18.1 Illness or inability to continue

A juror may become ill or otherwise unable to continue during a trial.

Section 16 of the Juries Act 1974 provides for the continuation of a criminal trial where a juror dies or is discharged, subject to the statutory requirements. In relevant Crown Court cases, the jury may continue with fewer than twelve jurors if the number does not fall below nine, although the court retains power to discharge the jury where appropriate.

The provision prevents every trial from necessarily collapsing because one juror becomes unable to continue.

However, the court must assess the circumstances and ensure that continuing with a reduced jury is lawful and fair.

18.2 Other reasons for discharge

A juror may need to be discharged for reasons other than illness, including a serious inability to perform the required function or circumstances that compromise impartiality.

The court must consider the evidence and legal basis for discharge. A juror should not be removed merely because their views are inconvenient to one party or because they appear likely to disagree with other jurors.

The decision must be consistent with the requirements of impartiality and the proper constitution of the jury.

18.3 Continuing with a reduced jury

The ability to continue with a reduced jury is subject to statutory limits and judicial discretion.

If the jury becomes too small to satisfy the applicable requirements, or if the circumstances otherwise make continuation inappropriate, the judge may need to discharge the jury.

The court must also consider whether the trial can continue fairly and whether the remaining jurors can properly perform their role.

The rules seek to balance the need to avoid unnecessary repetition of lengthy proceedings with the requirement that the defendant be tried by a properly constituted and impartial tribunal.

19. Jury Secrecy and the Protection of Deliberations

19.1 Why deliberations are private

Jury deliberations are protected to allow jurors to speak candidly, change their minds, and assess evidence without external pressure.

If jurors were required to disclose every argument or preliminary view publicly, they might be reluctant to discuss difficult issues openly. The privacy of deliberations supports the collective decision-making process.

However, secrecy is not intended to conceal criminal conduct or permit jurors to disregard their legal obligations.

19.2 Restrictions on disclosure

The law restricts the disclosure of information about jury deliberations. Jurors are warned about the prohibitions and the potential consequences of unlawful research or disclosure.

The rules are particularly important in the modern information environment, where jurors may be tempted to post comments online or discuss the trial in private messaging groups.

A juror must not assume that a conversation is permissible merely because it occurs outside a public forum. The applicable restrictions must be respected throughout the trial and afterwards where they continue to apply.

19.3 Misconduct and possible consequences

Improper research, communication, or disclosure may lead to serious consequences, depending on the conduct and applicable law.

Such conduct can threaten the fairness of the trial, create grounds for legal applications, and in some circumstances constitute a criminal offence or contempt of court.

The precise legal consequence depends on the nature of the conduct and the relevant statutory provisions. Not every mistake has the same legal effect, but jurors must take their responsibilities seriously.

20. Jury Trial and the Right to a Fair Hearing

20.1 Independence and impartiality

The right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights includes the requirement that criminal charges be determined by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.

In a jury trial, the jury must be impartial, and the judge must act independently and fairly.

The random selection process, legal qualification rules, challenges for cause, restrictions on jury vetting, and prohibitions on outside influence all contribute to the protection of impartiality.

The existence of a jury does not automatically guarantee fairness. The trial must still be conducted in accordance with the law, and the jury must receive appropriate directions and consider admissible evidence.

20.2 The presumption of innocence

The defendant is presumed innocent unless guilt is proved in accordance with the law.

The jury must not assume guilt because the defendant has been charged, because the allegation is serious, or because the case has attracted public attention.

The judge’s directions must make clear that the prosecution bears the burden of proof and that the defendant is entitled to a verdict based on the evidence rather than speculation or prejudice.

20.3 Equality of arms and the ability to challenge the case

Fairness requires that the defence have a meaningful opportunity to challenge the prosecution evidence within the applicable procedural framework.

The jury must evaluate the evidence presented in court, including the results of cross-examination and any defence evidence. It must not treat the prosecution’s case as established merely because the prosecution presented it first or because its evidence appears extensive.

The judge must ensure that legal rulings and directions enable the jury to understand the issues and apply the correct legal test.

20.4 The trial as a whole

Fairness is assessed in the context of the proceedings as a whole.

A minor procedural problem may be addressed through a direction or other corrective measure. A serious problem may require more substantial intervention. The court must assess the nature of the issue, its impact on the trial, and the available lawful response.

The fundamental objective is to ensure that the verdict is reached through a fair process in which the jury applies the law to the evidence without improper influence.

21. Common Misunderstandings About Jury Trials

Misunderstanding One: Every criminal case in England and Wales is tried by a jury

This is incorrect. Many criminal cases are dealt with in the magistrates’ courts without a jury. Jury trial is principally associated with contested trials in the Crown Court, subject to statutory exceptions.

Misunderstanding Two: The parties can choose the jurors they prefer

The jury is selected at random from the relevant panel, subject to the legal rules governing qualification and challenges. The parties do not have an unrestricted right to choose a favourable jury.

Misunderstanding Three: The judge decides whether the defendant is guilty

In an ordinary jury trial, the jury determines guilt or innocence on the facts. The judge rules on legal questions, manages the trial, gives directions, and sentences the defendant if convicted.

Misunderstanding Four: A jury must always be unanimous

The law permits majority verdicts in defined circumstances under section 17 of the Juries Act 1974. The required majority depends on the number of jurors remaining, and the statutory conditions must be satisfied.

Misunderstanding Five: A majority verdict can be accepted immediately

The court must comply with the statutory requirements concerning deliberation. A majority verdict cannot simply be accepted as soon as the jury reports disagreement.

Misunderstanding Six: Jurors can use information found online

Jurors must not conduct independent research into the case or use outside information to supplement the evidence. They must decide the case on the evidence presented in court and the judge’s directions.

Misunderstanding Seven: A hung jury means the defendant has been acquitted

A hung jury has failed to reach a verdict. It is not the same as a not-guilty verdict, and a retrial may be considered under the applicable law.

Misunderstanding Eight: The jury can ignore the judge’s directions if it disagrees with the law

The jury must apply the law as explained by the judge. It is responsible for determining the facts, but it must do so within the legal framework governing the charge.

Misunderstanding Nine: A guilty verdict means the judge also determines the sentence through the jury

The jury ordinarily decides guilt, while the judge determines the sentence after conviction, applying the relevant sentencing law and principles.

Misunderstanding Ten: Jury secrecy allows jurors to do anything during deliberations

Deliberations are private, but jurors remain subject to strict duties. They must not conduct independent research, receive improper outside assistance, or disclose protected deliberations unlawfully.

Key Takeaways

Trial by jury is a central feature of contested criminal proceedings in the Crown Court, but it is not used in every criminal case in England and Wales.

The Juries Act 1974 and the Criminal Procedure Rules 2025 govern important aspects of jury qualification, selection, constitution, continuation, and verdicts.

Potential jurors are selected through a random process from the relevant pool. The ordinary jury consists of twelve jurors, although the rules permit up to fourteen to be selected initially for certain longer trials. Statutory provisions also allow a trial to continue with a reduced jury in defined circumstances.

The judge and jury have distinct responsibilities. The judge determines questions of law, rules on evidence, manages the trial, and directs the jury. The jury evaluates the facts and decides whether the prosecution has proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt.

Jury directions explain the legal elements of the offence, the burden and standard of proof, and any special considerations necessary to assess the evidence fairly.

Jurors must deliberate privately and independently, avoid outside research, and refrain from improper communication about the case. Majority verdicts may be accepted only when the statutory conditions are satisfied.

A guilty verdict ordinarily leads to sentencing by the judge. A not-guilty verdict results in acquittal, whereas a hung jury means that no verdict has been reached and a retrial may be considered.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. How many jurors sit in a criminal trial in England and Wales?

The ordinary Crown Court criminal jury consists of twelve jurors. Under Rule 25.6 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2025, a jury may initially comprise as many as fourteen jurors where the court expects the trial to last more than four weeks, subject to the rule governing the discharge of additional jurors before the prosecution evidence begins.

2. How are jurors selected?

Potential jurors are generally summoned through random selection from electoral registers. In court, the jury is selected at random from the panel in accordance with the Juries Act 1974 and the Criminal Procedure Rules.

3. Can a juror be challenged?

Yes, but challenges are subject to the applicable legal rules. A challenge for cause requires a legally relevant basis. The prosecution also has a limited procedure for asking a potential juror to stand by. Neither procedure creates an unrestricted right to select a preferred jury.

4. What does the judge do in a jury trial?

The judge manages the proceedings, rules on questions of law and evidence, ensures that the trial is conducted fairly, explains the law to the jury, and determines the sentence following conviction. The jury ordinarily determines the facts and returns the verdict.

5. What is a jury direction?

A jury direction is an instruction from the judge explaining the law or how the jury must approach a particular issue. Directions may cover the elements of the offence, the burden and standard of proof, identification evidence, confessions, hearsay, or other matters requiring legal guidance.

6. Must a jury be unanimous?

No. Section 17 of the Juries Act 1974 permits majority verdicts in defined circumstances. For a jury of twelve, ten jurors must agree; for a jury of eleven, ten must agree; and for a jury of ten, nine must agree. The court must also comply with the statutory requirements concerning deliberation and the acceptance of a majority verdict.

7. How long must a jury deliberate before a majority verdict can be accepted?

Section 17 of the Juries Act 1974 requires the court to be satisfied that the jury has had a reasonable period to deliberate, taking account of the nature and complexity of the case. The provision also requires at least two hours of deliberation before a majority verdict is accepted in the circumstances it governs.

8. Can jurors search the internet for information about the case?

No. Jurors must not conduct independent research into the case or use outside material to supplement the evidence presented at trial. The restrictions are intended to protect the fairness of the proceedings and ensure that the parties can challenge the evidence used to determine guilt.

9. What happens if the jury cannot agree?

If the jury cannot reach a verdict, the judge may allow further deliberation or provide additional directions where appropriate. If agreement remains impossible and the relevant conditions are met, the judge may discharge the jury. A retrial may then be considered under the applicable law.

10. What is the difference between an acquittal and a hung jury?

An acquittal follows a not-guilty verdict. A hung jury has not reached a verdict. The two outcomes are legally distinct, and a retrial may be considered after a hung jury.

11. Can a criminal trial in the Crown Court take place without a jury?

Yes, in certain statutory circumstances. For example, the Criminal Justice Act 2003 provides for a trial without a jury in defined cases involving a danger of jury tampering or where jury tampering appears to have occurred. Such procedures are subject to specific legal requirements and are not a general alternative available simply because a case is complex.

12. Who decides the sentence after a guilty verdict?

The judge ordinarily determines the sentence after a jury returns a guilty verdict. The sentence must be imposed in accordance with the applicable legislation, sentencing guidelines, and principles governing the offence and the circumstances of the defendant.

Conclusion

Trial by jury in England and Wales is a structured legal process that combines public participation in fact-finding with judicial control of the law and procedure.

The jury is selected under formal rules designed to promote random selection and impartiality. Once constituted, it must consider the evidence independently, follow the judge’s legal directions, and determine whether the prosecution has proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt.

The judge’s role is essential to this process. Legal rulings determine what evidence may be considered, directions explain the rules that govern the verdict, and procedural safeguards protect the integrity of deliberations. The statutory rules on majority verdicts, discharge of jurors, and exceptional trials without a jury provide mechanisms for dealing with practical difficulties while preserving the requirement of a lawful and fair trial.

The jury’s authority is significant, but it is not unlimited. Jurors must not investigate the case independently, rely on outside information, or substitute personal prejudice for evidence. Their task is to decide the issues placed before them within the legal framework explained by the judge.

Ultimately, the legitimacy of jury trial depends on the proper operation of both parts of the system. The judge must ensure that the law is correctly applied and the proceedings remain fair; the jury must assess the evidence conscientiously and return a verdict according to the law. Together, these responsibilities form an important part of the criminal justice system in England and Wales.