The Feasibility of Expanding the Jury Pool in Hong Kong

• Author: Cora Y. T. Hui,T. Wing Lo
• Published date: 01 August 2016
• Date: 01 August 2016
• DOI: 10.1177/1043986216656683
• Subject Matter: Articles

Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice

2016, Vol. 32(3) 225 –242

© The Author(s) 2016

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1043986216656683

ccj.sagepub.com

Article

The Feasibility of Expanding

the Jury Pool in Hong Kong:

A Comparison of Legal

Decision Making Between

Youth and Adult Mock Jurors

Cora Y. T. Hui1 and T. Wing Lo1

Abstract

The present study aims to provide an empirical demonstration that a feasible solution

to expand the jury pool is to lower the minimum age requirement to include 18-year-

olds. The present study compares the following three types of responses from a

youth sample and from an adult sample: (a) the ratings of reliability of commonly

seen evidence, (b) guilt judgments in a hypothetical rape trial, and (c) rationales

for verdicts. Results showed that both youth and adult participants were capable

of basing their judgments largely on legally relevant information. When guided by

evidence, some youths in the present sample could reach similar guilt judgments to

the adults. However, youths appeared to have a lower threshold for being satisfied

beyond reasonable doubt when certain evidence was presented.

Keywords

jury decision making, Hong Kong, court evidence, college sample, jury eligibility

requirement, minimum age limit

Introduction

The jury system was introduced to Hong Kong in 1845, shortly after Hong Kong

became a British colony. The principle of “one country, two systems” grants Hong

Kong a high degree of autonomy and promises little change in the social and legal

systems in Hong Kong after the return to Chinese sovereignty. As a result, Hong Kong

1City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong

Corresponding Author:

Cora Y. T. Hui, Department of Applied Social Sciences, City University of Hong Kong, Tat Chee Road,

Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong.

Email: corahui-c@my.cityu.edu.hk

656683CCJXXX10.1177/1043986216656683Journal of Contemporary Criminal JusticeHui and Lo

research-article2016

226 Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 32(3)

remains a common law jurisdiction. The legal system in Hong Kong resembles the

system in England and Wales to a greater degree than the system in mainland China.

The importance of the jury is also recognized in Article 86 of the Basic Law, which

stipulates “the principle of trial by jury previously practiced in Hong Kong shall be

maintained.” Although there is no constitutional right to trial by jury in Hong Kong,

trial by jury has been considered as one of the most essential features of the legal sys-

tem in Hong Kong (Judiciary, 2012).

Despite the long history of the jury system, the present article argues that the jury

system in Hong Kong, in practice, is underused and its value undermined. Legislators,

legal scholars, and legal professionals have persistently called for greater use of the

jury system in Hong Kong (many call for expansion of the jury system in the District

Court), yet the Department of Justice has not been enthusiastic about this discussion

(LegCo Panel on Administration of Justice and Legal Services, 1997, 2010). Between

2007 and 2009, there were only 69 to 77 cases tried by jury in the Court of First

Instance, whereas the vast remaining (588-647 cases) were being tried by judges in

solitary in the District Court (News.gov.hk, 2009). Furthermore, the Director of Public

Prosecution stressed that the benefits of a jury trial are more perceived than proven

(LegCo Panel on Administration of Justice and Legal Services, 2010).

The former Secretary of Justice, Mr. Wong Yan Lung (2005-2012), took a stand that

no changes to the current jury system were warranted (News.gov.hk, 2009). He noted

that any change would require a lengthy, detailed, and in-depth study. In accordance

with the former Secretary of Justice’s view that well-designed research is vital to

inform action, the present article strives to serve two purposes. First, we reviewed the

literature to point out the benefits of jury decision making. Second, we hope to provide

empirical support of the practicality and feasibility of the expansion of the jury system.

Furthermore, we believe the present study comes in timely in response to recent dis-

cussions in the Legislative Council on the issue of whether an offense is to be tried by

jury or by judge (LegCo Panel on Administration of Justice and Legal Services, 2014).

Debates on the Jury System in Hong Kong

There are four levels of courts in Hong Kong: Magistrates’ Court, District Court, High

Court (Court of First Instance and Court of Appeal), and Court of Final Appeal.

Summary offenses are only tried in the Magistrates’ Court. Many indictable offenses

may be tried either summarily (in the Magistrates’ Court) or on indictment (in the

District Court or the Court of First Instance), and the prosecution has the right to deter-

mine the venue of the trial. The jury system only exists in the Court of First Instance

of the High Court where defendants are tried by a presiding judge and a jury of seven

people (or nine people if the judge orders). The most serious criminal offenses, includ-

ing murder, manslaughter, rape, armed robbery, and certain drug offenses, can only be

tried in the Court of First Instance. Should the prosecution elect the District Court as

the trial venue, the defendant will be tried by a District Court judge and not by a jury.

District Court judges, who are empowered to pass a sentence of imprisonment of up to

7 years, try defendants in solitary.