The Fate of the Traditional Criminal Jury Trial in Europe

In spite of the U.K.’s membership in the European Union, jury trials in serious criminal cases continue to play a vital role in England and Wales.  However, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has raised new questions for countries that adhere to traditional criminal jury trials, such as England and Wales.  In traditional criminal jury trials, the jury typically provides only a general verdict: guilty or not guilty.  The ECtHR has suggested that criminal defendants have a right to reasons for the verdict in their case.  Although the ECtHR has not gone so far as to conclude that traditional jury trials violate a criminal defendant’s right to human rights by not giving reasons, it has sparked a debate amongst European countries about their trials.  Should they continue, like England and Wales, to have criminal jury trials that provide only a general verdict?  Should they follow Spain’s example and require criminal juries to give reasons for their verdicts?  Alternatively, should they adopt mixed courts, like France, and have lay participants work with professional judges to provide opinions?  Based on my observations of jury trials in serious criminal cases and interviews with judges and barristers at the Old Bailey in London, I explore in this paper the current debate in Europe about the fate of the trial, through the lens of the traditional criminal jury trial in England and Wales, and I argue that jury trials are alive and well at the Old Bailey.