ABSTRACT
The idea of judges as arbitrators obviously corresponds to the former idea, whereas juries are associated with the latter notion of ordinary people judging the behaviour of wrongdoers. The legitimacy of the judiciary is further enhanced by ensuring that its members are appointed in a manner that is seen to be fair and that ensures that the judiciary is balanced with regard to certain important characteristics. The extent to which the judiciary constitutes a fair representation of the population as a whole is a perennial issue. Juries can serve as protection against the biases of police officers, prosecution officials and judges. Juries also have the power to ensure that harsh laws are not necessarily enforced. In order to protect that freedom juries are not required to give reasons for their judgement. In fact, the Contempt of Court Act 1985 forbids them to do so. The overview of judicial appointments and jury arrangements shows an impressive degree of diversity.
