I started jury service yesterday and will be ‘doing my civic duty' for the next fortnight … so I will be blogging as and when I can. Likewise, work on my current projects is likely to be somewhat less than usual.
I am hoping that things will return to whatever passes for normal after Easter. Until then, adios amigos!
.jpg)
Well, I hope you get an/some interesting case/s. I've only been called for Jury service once, in 2005 - for the first two days I wasn't needed, but on day three I ended up on a case that lasted the remaining eight days and the other jurors decided I should be Foreman.
ReplyDeleteIt was mostly video/games piracy with some handling stolen goods thrown in for good measure (I think we had about 40 specimen charges from a potential 4-500); there were two counts of the latter crimes which we didn't feel there was enough evidence for and they were the first two counts on the sheet - the look on the face of the DS when I answered "Not guilty" to those two and he thought the whole case was blown was a picture.
Of course, had we been in Scotland, those two charges would almost certainly have been "Not proven" verdicts.
Annoyingly for me, the last two days overlapped with the TUC LGBT Conference, which I was meant to be attending as a delegate (and as a member of the Committee) - I managed to make it for the evening socials though, and was staying in the hotel with the rest of my union's delegation.
TamsinP,
DeleteI was empanelled late yesterday, and began to hear the prosecution case. After a late start today, we heard more of the prosecution case and expect that unless there is another holdup, we should hear the defence tomorrow, then the closing remarks so that we can begin our deliberations late tomorrow or on Thursday.
On the face of it, the case appears to be quite a simple one, but I have a feeling that the deliberations will not be. Other than that, I’ll make no further comment.
All the best,
Bob
PS. I never knew that you were heavily involved in the work of the TUC. Good for you!
I last served on a jury in the High Court, cost me a week of my life.
ReplyDeleteNow that I'm an 'oldie' I can refuse to serve again.
Jim Duncan,
DeleteI thought that I was too old to serve on a jury, but they increased the age to 75 some time ago because they were having trouble getting enough people to serve.
All the best,
Bob
Good Luck. Try to stay awake through the council for the defence's obfuscations. They deliberately drone on in the hope that you will lose interest.
ReplyDeleteChris Kemp,
DeleteCheers! It’s so cold in the courtroom that we are having no problem at all staying awake!
All the best,
Bob
Never had the pleasure in my 50 years (since turning 18) of availability. They must have me down as a hanging/flogging jurer!
ReplyDeleteKhusru,
DeleteI thought that I was too old to serve, but some time ago they increased the top age limit to 75 … and I finally got the call at the age of 73.
You never know, it might be your turn next …
All the best,
Bob
Bob,
ReplyDeleteI've been exempted from Jury Duty for many decades now- my Doctor organised it...must say I wouldn't have minded doing it and serving on a Jury. Anyway Bob- stay well there. Cheers. KEV.
Kev Robertson (Kev),
DeleteI understand that it’s quite difficult to get an exemption, but that it’s easier to get a deferment on medical grounds. I might have been able to get deferred for up to a year, but would not have been able to get a further deferment after that … so I decided to get it done and dusted now so that I can then move on to having my radiotherapy.
All the best,
Bob
I've served a few times over the years, and got called in a few more times but then dismissed. There can be interesting parts to it, but these days I wish those previous times I served would count as having done my duty and exempt me from having to serve again. Last time I was called was not far into covid, so they may have dismissed everyone.
ReplyDeleteLooks like different US states have different age limits (ranging from 65 to 80). I have a few more years before I reach the age where my state allows people to request to be excused from jury duty. Unless, like in your case they raise the age limit before I reach it.
Anyway, I hope your time on jury service goes well.
Fitz-Badger,
DeleteThis is my first time but my wife had done three stints as a juror. In the UK there is no limit to the number of times you can be called for jury service, but it is never more than once in two years. There are some exemptions and in some circumstances you can defer service for up to a year.
I’m enjoying the trial that I’m on at present, even though we have had lots of breaks for legal arguments to take place between the lawyers and the judge.
All the best,
Bob
Sounds similar to here. Yeah, no limit to the number of times you can be summoned, and unless you get dismissed before going in they aren't supposed to call you in more than once a year. We can defer, too, but unless a person has a good reason to I figure you might as well get it over with.
DeleteFitz-Badger,
DeleteJudging by the conversations I’ve had with my fellow jurors, they are mostly 40 to 60 years old, with a smattering of younger people. Many are working part-time or are self-employed, and get a payment for each day they serve to compensate them for loss of earnings. It’s not a lot, but it’s better than having no compensation at all. We all get an meal and travel allowance which just about covers one’s out-of-pocket expenses.
All the best,
Bob
Somehow my local officials decide to call me for jury duty whenever I'm 3 days away from taking a vacation.
ReplyDeleteMr. Pavone,
DeleteI must admit that I was concerned that if I deferred my ‘call up’, any new date would be whilst I was having radiotherapy.
All the best,
Bob
I have been called about three or four times but I managed to get out of it on all but the most recent one (about eight years ago now) by getting my employer to write me a letter saying how critical I was to the continuance of their business operations! Not that I had an objection per se, but the flat rate payment here in NZ at the time was $65 per day, and a minimum wage worker would earn at least $100 per day for an 8 hour day....so if you ended up on a complicated case that lasted two weeks, you would be quite a bit out of pocket. Personally, I have always thought it should be part of the social contract that your employer pay you as normal while you are on jury duty....it's an individual's responsibility to society to serve, so I see no reason why it should not be the employers corporate responsibility to society to pay!
ReplyDeleteOur case was pretty simple, there were only really two main witnesses....the defendant, and an "enforcement officer" as he was euphemistically called....a drink driver and a police officer. We all agreed he was guilty at the first break of the first day, but we still had go through two days of "evidence" before we got to say so to the judge!
Personally, I think if the state requires an employee to take time off work for jury service, it is the state that ought to pay the juror (the salary he would have earned so he is not out of pocket) and not the employer who is being inconvenienced by his/her absence and also perhaps the cost of hiring a temporary replacement. Any other arrangement is hardly 'just'!
Deleterross,
DeleteHad I been working, I would have been out of pocket for doing jury service as I was only paid for the hours that I worked, but because I am retired, all I qualified for was a meal and travel allowance. I suspect that this is one reason why they have raised the top age for jury service to 75 (actually you can be summoned right up to your 76th birthday!), as pensioners are 'cheap' jurors to use!
I agree that employers should not penalise their employees who go on jury service by stopping their wages or salaries. After all, employers - regardless of size - benefit from the legal system and should consider jury service by their employees as part of their contribution to civil society. That said, I also think that employers should be able to offset the costs they incur when an employee goes on jury service against any national tax liabilities that they have.
All the best,
Bob
Arthur1815 (Arthur),
DeleteI concur with you on this. The employers should be able to claim back any costs that they incur from the government in some way, probably by claiming it as an expense against any tax liabilities that they have. Companies collect income tax, National Insurance contributions, and Value Added Tax on behalf of the government and are not paid for it. Offsetting costs incurred by employees going on jury service could easily be written off against - for example - NI contributions that are being paid to the government.
All the best,
Bob
hi Bob, I hope it's going well and is interesting, at least! I think the previous commenters have given a good impression of how it tends to go.. I have been called three times, the first time I got exempted becuase I had been previously employed as an officer of Customs and Excise, and that gave a 10-year exemption ( I assume I would have been seen as biased in favour of the police ) - quite handy! I seem to remember my employers did make up my pay, which was quite sensible of them. I do think it's part of everyone's civic duty, so employers ought to be supportive. It is always an 'eye-opener' on life and the criminal justice system, in both positive and negative ways.
ReplyDeleteOne of the cases I sat for revolved around a fight in a night-club, with the defendant accused of 'affray' - all the witness accounts were so vague and varied that the judge dismissed the case. It strongly reminded me of Wellington's quote about writing the history of a battle being like writiing the history of a ball...
Final point - do take a good book for the many periods of waiting around!
David in Suffolk,
DeleteI think that the rules have changed about exemptions over recent years, and nowadays you would not have been given a ten-year exemption.
I certainly have come away with the impression that the legal process in the the UK can best be described as very slow and steady. Great care is taken to ensure that the defendant gets a fair trial, and in the case I have been hearing there have been numerous stoppages so that the lawyers can agree on what evidence is disputed and what can be agreed by both sides. The latter can then be presented as a statement that is read out without any need for cross-examination by the prosecution or the defence. This ultimately speeds the whole process up without impinging on the defendants right to a fair trial.
I took my Kindle with me to court each day ... and read over 50% of a novel I loaded up on Sunday. It helped to relieve the boredom when we were waiting to be called down and during lunch.
All the best,
Bob
It would speed up the process even more if the opposing lawyers could agree what evidence is not disputed before the trial begins. They would - of course! - still be paid for the time spent in these negotiations, but the jury would not be kept sitting idle - and, perhaps, forgetting what they had already heard, waiting for the trial to resume. Since both sides have to make full disclosure before the trial, this should not be impossible, methinks.
DeleteWhat about fair treatment of witnesses? One of the reasons I decided not to pursue a legal career (never regretted) was being horrified when my tutor - himself an ex-barrister - quoted the example of counsel discrediting a witness in the minds of the jury by forcing him to admit that his job in a club meant he was a "Bar steward" and thereafter always referring to the witness by eliding the two words so that they sounded remarkably similar to 'bastard'. This was presented to us as "brilliant advocacy" - to my mind a cheap trick the judge ought to have stamped on straight away, but clearly did not. I suppose it made for good laughs in chambers afterwards...
Best wishes,
Arthur
Arthur1815 (Arthur),
DeleteThis happened in the trial I’ve just been a juror for. We were given a document during the presentation of the prosecution case that was a statement of evidence that was not disputed by either sides . This saved a couple of witnesses having to attend court and be asked questions and then not cross-examined as the other side did not dispute what evidence they were going to give.
Neither of the barristers were in any way disrespectful to the witnesses, including the defendant. The cross-examination was thorough but not hectoring, and as a juror I felt that the defendant had the opportunity to give a full account of the events from his perspective.
The story you relate is disgusting, and if I had been a juror it would have been counter-productive. There is nothing wrong with a barrister attempting to reveal the witness to be less than truthful, but insulting them in the way you describe isn’t ‘clever’. It’s actually a rather cheap and insulting ‘trick’ being used by a lawyer who is a disgrace to their profession and who should have been stopped from continuing to do it by the judge.
All the best,
Bob