Evaluate the use of juries in criminal law.

Juries are random selections of the public from the electoral register, used in determining the verdict of (mostly) criminal cases - i.e., whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty. This can be decided unanimously (all twelve jurors agree) or on a majority basis (usually 10-2 or 11-1). 

Many would praise the jury service given that it represents the Magna Carta's established right for a defendant to be tried by his or her peers. By having members of the public sit on cases, the law can be seen to be much more transparent and fair, and increases confidence in the criminal justice system. By having many people sit on a case at once, this allows for the confidence to be spread throughout the community. Juries also allow for the greater representation of minorities in law, where such representation may be much lower when cases are simply tried by a judge. Furthermore, a twelve-person system means that any biases within the group should be cancelled out, and thus cases no longer rest as heavily on one person's decision to convict or not.

However, juries aren't perfect - there are many disadvantages for having one try a case. For instance, it increases the likelihood that the defendant will be known by someone on the jury, which challenges the right to a fair trial (Article 6 ECHR). Juries can also be pressured and threatened to convict one way or another (known as jury nobbling). Furthermore, these people aren't necessarily legally qualified, meaning that miscarriages of justice can and do happen - far more frequently than one would like. Because of this lack of experience and expertise, it can be easy to become confused by all of the legal jargon and complexities that cases often pose.