Trial by jury is under threat. This is particularly true in the context of terrorism. This article will explore the benefits of trial by jury to civil society. It will then consider whether those benefits should give rise to a presumption in favour of jury trial in the terrorism context. Historically, the right to trial by jury has been interfered with on the basis that the threat of terrorism justified an exceptional response. This article will argue that the state of exception arising from states' responses to terrorism in fact demands the retention of trial by jury.
Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation (2010), 8-P.
11.
CornishW.R. (1968), The Jury, London: Allen Lane.
12.
DarbyshireP. (1991), ‘The Lamp that Shows that Freedom Lives: Is it Worth the Candle?’, Criminal Law Review, October, pp. 740–752.
13.
DavisF. (2007), The History and Development of the Special Criminal Court: 1922–2005, Dublin: Four Courts Press.
14.
DavisM.D. (2009), ‘Historical Perspectives on Guantánamo Bay: The Arrival of the High Value Detainees’, Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law42, pp. 115–124.
15.
De LondrasF. (2008), ‘Guantanamo Bay: Towards Legality?’, Modern Law Review71(1), pp. 36–58.
16.
De LondrasF.DavisF. (2010), ‘Controlling the Executive in Times of Emergency: Competing Perspectives on Effective Oversight Mechanisms’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies30(1), pp. 19–47.
Dickerson v. the United States (2000), 530 US 428.
21.
DiplockL.K. (1972), Report of the Commission to Consider Legal Procedures to Deal with Terrorist Activities in Northern Ireland, London: Cmnd. 5185.
22.
DonohueL.K. (2007), ‘Terrorism and Trial by Jury: The Vices and Virtues of British and American Criminal Law’, Stanford Law Review59, pp. 1321–1364.
23.
EwingK. (2010), Bonfire of the Liberties: New Labour, Human Rights, and the Rule of Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
24.
Ex parte Milligan (1866), 71 US 2.
25.
GastilJ.DeessE.P.WeiserP.J. (2002), ‘Civic Awakenings in the Jury Room: A Test of the Connection between Jury Deliberation and Political Participation’, Journal of Politics64(2), pp. 585–595.
26.
GastilJ.DeessE.P.WeiserP.J.SimmonsC. (2010), The Jury and Democracy: How Jury Deliberation Promotes Civic Engagement and Political Participation, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
27.
GelatiJ.GovernatoriG.RotoloA.SartorG. (2002), ‘Declarative Power, Representation, and Mandate: A Formal Analysis’ in Bench-CaponT.J.M.DaskalopuluA.WinkelsR.G.F. (eds.), Legal Knowledge and Information Systems. Jurix 2002: The Fifteenth Annual Conference, Amsterdam: IOS Press, pp. 41–52.
28.
Gregory v. the United Kingdom (1997), 25 EHRR 577.
29.
Handyside v. the United Kingdom (1976), ECHR 5.
30.
HoH.L. (2006), ‘What Does a Verdict Do? A Speech Act Analysis of Giving a Verdict’, International Commentary on Evidence4(2), Available at: http://www.bepress.com/ice/vol4/iss2/art1, accessed 8 May 2012.
31.
HoH.L. (2010), ‘Liberalism and the Criminal Trial’, Sydney Law Review32, pp. 269–287.
32.
HoganG.WalkerC. (1989), Political Violence and the Law in Ireland, Manchester: Manchester University Press.
IvieR.L. (2002), ‘Rhetorical Deliberation and Democratic Politics in the Here and Now’, Rhetoric and Public Affairs5(2), pp. 277–285.
35.
JacksonR. (2005), ‘Security, Democracy, and the Rhetoric of Counter-Terrorism’, Democracy and Security1(2), pp. 147–171.
36.
KahnJ. (2008), ‘Vladimir Putin and the Rule of Law in Russia’, Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law36(3), pp. 511–558.
37.
Kingswell v. the Queen (1989), 165 CLR 264.
38.
LeoR. (1996), ‘Criminal Law: The Impact of Miranda Revisited’, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology86, pp. 621–692.
39.
LindenmeyrA. (2001), ‘The First Soviet Political Trial: Countess Sofia Panina before the Petrograd Revolutionary Tribunal’, The Russian Review60, pp. 505–525.
40.
McGarrityN. (2010), ‘“Testing” Our Counter-Terrorism Laws: The Prosecution of Individuals for Terrorism Offences in Australia’, Criminal Law Journal34, pp. 92–127.
Remli v. France (1996), 22European Human Rights Reporter, 253.
48.
RoachK. (2011), The 9/11 Effect: Comparative Counter-Terrorism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
49.
RoachK. (2012), ‘The Criminal Law and Its Less Restrained Alternatives’ in RamrajV.V.HorM.RoachK.WilliamsG. (eds.), Global Anti-terrorism Law and Policy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 91–121.
50.
Sander v. the United Kingdom (2001), 31European Human Rights Reporter, 44.
51.
SaratA.KearnsT.R. (1993), Law's Violence, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
52.
SatterthwaiteM.L. (2007), ‘Rendered Meaningless: Extraordinary Rendition and the Rule of Law’, George Washington Law Review75(5/6), pp. 1333–1420.
53.
SearleJ.R. (1962), ‘Meaning and Speech Acts’, Philosophical Review71(4), pp. 423–432.
54.
SitesR. (1998), ‘Trial as Theatre in the Russian Revolution’, Theatre Research International23(1), pp. 7–13.
55.
SpjutR.J. (1986), ‘Internment without Trial in Northern Ireland 1971–1975: Ministerial Policy and Practice’, Modern Law Review49, pp. 712–740.
56.
SteinerR.BauerR.TalwarR. (2011), ‘The Rise and Fall of the Miranda Warnings in Popular Culture’, Cleveland Law Review59, pp. 1–18.
57.
ThackerayV. (2006), ‘Trial by Jury: A Political Analysis’, Criminal Law Journal30, pp. 275–289.
58.
TillyC. (2004), ‘Terror, Terrorism, Terrorists’, Sociological Theory22(1), pp. 5–13.
59.
de TocquevilleA. (2003), Democracy in America and Two Essays on America, trans. BevanG.E., London: Penguin Books.
60.
TushnetM. (1984), ‘An Essay on Rights’, Texas Law Review62(8), pp. 1363–1403.
61.
TushnetM. (2003), ‘Defending Korematsu: Reflections on Civil Liberties in Wartime’, Wisconsin Law Review, pp. 273–307.
62.
VermueleA. (2012), ‘The Atrophy of Constitutional Power’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1736124, accessed 22 August 2011.
63.
ZednerL. (2007), ‘Preventive Justice or Pre-punishment? The Case of Control Orders’, Current Legal Problems60(1), pp. 174–203.
