Glossary
Jury
A body of lay people, separate from the professional judges, brought in to decide questions the law entrusts to it in a particular trial.
Also called: Geschworenenbank, Geschworene.
Why the concept exists
Systems that use juries decided that some decisions should not rest with professionals alone, and that the lay voice should be structurally separate rather than folded into the bench. Ireland put the requirement in its constitution: no one may be tried on a criminal charge without a jury, save in the three situations the constitution itself carves out.
Where it operates
A jury is convened for a trial and dissolved after it, so it is a temporary institution rather than a standing one. What it is asked to decide varies: it may answer the question of guilt and nothing else, or it may share in more. Austria shows the split plainly — the Geschworene there decide guilt alone, but the sentence is fixed by them together with the professional judges, so even a separate lay body need not be separate for every purpose.
Worth knowing
Separate is the load-bearing word. A jury sits as its own body; lay judges sit on the bench beside the professionals. That structural difference, not the presence of non-lawyers, is what makes a jury a jury.
How far it travels
Whether a jury is used at all, for which offences, and what it decides are three different questions with three different answers. Ireland requires one by constitution for criminal charges, subject to exceptions for minor offences, special courts and military tribunals. Austria runs juries alongside mixed benches, reserving them for the gravest offences. In England and Wales the Juries Act sets out when a majority verdict may be taken and puts a county court jury complete at eight; the Crown Court complement is NOT ESTABLISHED by anything read here, because the section governs majority verdicts rather than size.
Commonly confused with
- lay-judge
Worked examples
Systems this platform has researched. Each example shows how one country actually arranges this — including where it departs from the general pattern.
- Ireland
- Article 38.5 of the Constitution: "Save in the case of the trial of offences under section 2, section 3 or section 4 of this Article no person shall be tried on any criminal charge without a jury." The three exceptions are minor offences tried summarily, special courts established where the ordinary courts are found inadequate, and military tribunals.
- Austria
- A Geschworenengericht is composed of three professional judges sitting as the Schwurgerichtshof and eight Geschworene sitting as the Geschworenenbank, and is used for the gravest offences — those carrying life imprisonment, or a lower limit above five years and an upper limit above ten. The Geschworene decide guilt alone; the sentence is set by them together with the professional judges.
Sources
Bunreacht na hÉireann / Constitution of Ireland — Articles 15.5.2, 28.3, 38, 40.4
Office of the Attorney General (electronic Irish Statute Book) · Legislation · 1937 · link verified 2026-08-26
The consolidated text on the electronic Irish Statute Book, read directly. Supports Bunreacht na hEireann, Article 28.3.3 (definition of "time of war"): “In this subsection "time of war" includes a time when there is taking place an armed conflict in which the State is not a participant but in respect of which each of the Houses of the Oireachtas shall have resolved that, arising out of such armed conflict, a national emergency exists affecting the vital interests of the State”. Supports Bunreacht na hEireann, Article 15.5.2 (read with Article 28.3.3): “2° The Oireachtas shall not enact any law providing for the imposition of the death penalty.”. Supports Bunreacht na hEireann, Article 40.4.1 and 40.4.2: “4 1° No citizen shall be deprived of his personal liberty save in accordance with law. 2° Upon complaint being made by or on behalf of any person to the High Court or any judge thereof alleging that such person is being unlawfully detained, the High Court and any and every judge thereof to whom such complaint is made shall forthwith enquire into the said complaint and may order the person in whose custody such person is detained to produce the body of such person before the High Court on a named day and to certify in writing the grounds of his detention, and the High Court shall, upon the body of such person being produced before that Court and after giving the person in whose custody he is detained an opportunity of justifying the detention, order the release of such person from such detention unless satisfied that he is being detained in accordance with the law.”. Supports Bunreacht na hEireann, Article 40.4.3: “3° Where the body of a person alleged to be unlawfully detained is produced before the High Court in pursuance of an order in that behalf made under this section and that Court is satisfied that such person is being detained in accordance with a law but that such law is invalid having regard to the provisions of this Constitution, the High Court shall refer the question of the validity of such law to the Court of Appeal by way of case stated and may, at the time of such reference or at any time thereafter, allow the said person to be at liberty on such bail and subject to such conditions as the High Court shall fix until the Court of Appeal has determined the question so referred to it.”. Supports Bunreacht na hEireann, Article 40.4.5: “5° Nothing in this section, however, shall be invoked to prohibit, control, or interfere with any act of the Defence Forces during the existence of a state of war or armed rebellion.”. Supports Bunreacht na hEireann, Article 38.3.1, 38.4.1, 38.5: “3 1° Special courts may be established by law for the trial of offences in cases where it may be determined in accordance with such law that the ordinary courts are inadequate to secure the effective administration of justice, and the preservation of public peace and order. [..] 4 1° Military tribunals may be established for the trial of offences against military law alleged to have been committed by persons while subject to military law and also to deal with a state of war or armed rebellion. [..] 5 Save in the case of the trial of offences under section 2, section 3 or section 4 of this Article no person shall be tried on any criminal charge without a jury.”. Cited for four findings the general accounts get wrong: that the Article 28.3.3 shield is switched on and off by resolutions of BOTH Houses rather than by the Government; that it does not lapse when the conflict ends; that special courts are constitutionally PERMITTED where the ordinary courts are determined inadequate, which is the counter-example to the prohibition found elsewhere; and that the habeas corpus section is expressly disapplied as against acts of the Defence Forces during war or armed rebellion. It records no emergency, states no instance of any of these provisions being used, and supports no claim about any other country.WAVE 21 ADDITION. Read again from the same Irish Statute Book text of Bunreacht na hÉireann. Supports Art. 29.6 verbatim: “No international agreement shall be part of the domestic law of the State save as may be determined by the Oireachtas.” Supports Art. 40.4.1°: “No citizen shall be deprived of his personal liberty save in accordance with law.” Supports Art. 40.4.2°, and specifically that the remedy is worded more widely than the right it enforces: “Upon complaint being made by or on behalf of any person to the High Court or any judge thereof alleging that such person is being unlawfully detained, the High Court and any and every judge thereof to whom such complaint is made shall forthwith enquire into the said complaint and may order the person in whose custody such person is detained to produce the body of such person before the High Court on a named day and to certify in writing the grounds of his detention, and the High Court shall, upon the body of such person being produced before that Court and after giving the person in whose custody he is detained an opportunity of justifying the detention, order the release of such person from such detention unless satisfied that he is being detained in accordance with the law.” Supports Art. 40.5: “The dwelling of every citizen is inviolable and shall not be forcibly entered save in accordance with law.” Supports Art. 40.6.1° i, that the State guarantees liberty for the exercise of “the right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions”, subject to public order and morality. Supports the RIGHTS-HOLDER observation that Art. 40 repeatedly words rights for the citizen while Art. 40.4.2° words the habeas remedy for any person. IMPORTANT LIMITATION, stated on every page relying on this record: this establishes what the constitutional TEXT says about who holds the right. How the Irish courts have construed “citizen” in Article 40 was NOT researched for this wave, and this record supports no claim about it. WAVE 31 EXTENSION — Article 38 read in full at the same address rather than duplicated into a second record. Supports Art. 38.5 verbatim: “Save in the case of the trial of offences under section 2, section 3 or section 4 of this Article no person shall be tried on any criminal charge without a jury.” Supports the three exceptions it points to: Art. 38.2 (“Minor offences may be tried by courts of summary jurisdiction.”), Art. 38.3.1° (special courts where it is determined that “the ordinary courts are inadequate to secure the effective administration of justice, and the preservation of public peace and order”), and Art. 38.4 (military tribunals). DOES NOT SUPPORT the size of an Irish jury or how jurors are selected: Article 38 states neither.
Bundesministerium für Justiz (justiz.gv.at) · Government publication · link verified 2026-09-07
SCOPE: Austria, read directly on the justice ministry’s own explanatory page. Supports, verbatim: that the constitution provides for lay participation in Artikel 91 — "Dies sieht die österreichische Bundesverfassung (Bundes-Verfassungsgesetz) in Artikel 91 vor"; that lay adjudication is part of the democratic basic principle — "Laiengerichtsbarkeit ist daher ein Teil des demokratischen Grundprinzips der österreichischen Bundesverfassung und bewirkt eine Teilnahme der Rechtsprechung durch das Volk"; that a Geschworenengericht is composed of three professional judges (Schwurgerichtshof) and eight Geschworene (Geschworenenbank) — "Ein Geschworenengericht setzt sich aus drei Berufsrichter:innen („Schwurgerichtshof“) sowie acht Geschworenen („Geschworenenbank“) zusammen"; that in a Schöffengericht a professional judge decides on the verdict together with two Schöffen; that the Landesgericht sits as a Schöffengericht where the offence carries more than five years; that Geschworenengerichte decide particularly serious offences (life imprisonment, or a lower limit above five years and an upper limit above ten, e.g. murder); and that the Geschworenen decide guilt ALONE while the sentence is fixed together with the professional judges — "Die Geschworenen entscheiden allein über die Schuld des:der Angeklagten, über das Strafausmaß jedoch gemeinsam mit den Berufsrichter:innen". DOES NOT SUPPORT: the text of Art. 91 itself, which RIS did not serve; any claim that Geschworenengerichte try POLITICAL offences, which this page does not mention; and nothing outside Austria.
Juries Act 1974, section 17 — majority verdicts
The National Archives (legislation.gov.uk) · Legislation · 1974 · link verified 2026-09-07
SCOPE: England and Wales, majority verdicts, in the official revised text. NOT the United Kingdom: Scotland and Northern Ireland are not covered. Supports, in the section’s own words, that a county court jury is complete at EIGHT — a verdict may be accepted where "in a case where there is a complete jury of eight in a county court, seven of them agree on the verdict" — and that in the Crown Court or the High Court a verdict may be accepted where there are "not less than eleven jurors" and ten agree, or "ten jurors" and nine agree. CRITICALLY, IT DOES NOT SUPPORT A CROWN COURT JURY SIZE: the section governs when a majority verdict may be taken and states the thresholds for reduced panels; it nowhere states the full complement, so the number a reader expects is still NOT ESTABLISHED by anything this platform has read. Wave 30 left that hole deliberately and this record does not fill it.