Jury Service.

[ramAnag]

It seems changes may be on the way as regards the future of trial by jury. I know it’s being proposed by David Lammy which in itself will be a ‘red rag’ for some, but it’s not really a political issue and we should all be able to offer an objective perspective.
What experience do you have. Ever been a member of a jury? Ever been a defendant or witness giving evidence to a jury?
Personally I was called for jury service (in Stoke) about 25 years ago and was shocked at the levels of disorganisation, wastefulness, ignorance and intimidation. In my experience it is a very flawed and expensive system but what would you replace it with?

[Geoff Parkstone]

Never been called to service and now, I think too old. Never been to any court for any reason. So can't really comment on efficiency of system, but I won't condemn it on one person's anecdotal evidence (in Stoke!)

There is probably scope for reform - particularly in complex technical cases where specialist knowledge is needed to understand the charges / evidence etc - eg fraud or commercial disputes

[Geoff Parkstone]

oh no, have still got a little more time before can avoid jury service

[ramAnag]

oh no, have still got a little more time before can avoid jury service

Unfortunately, GP - for both you and possibly any defendants who contravene any of your various prejudices - you have another five years of eligibility.

Incidentally I wasn’t ‘condemning’ the current system. In my experience, which is clearly greater than yours but, as you say, entirely personal, the jury system is horribly wasteful and therefore a drain on the public purse. I was just wondering what the alternative would be and if others had the same experience.

[macstheman]

During my working life several of my colleagues did JS but I never got called. I must admit I did fancy the idea (Owts better than work I reckoned), however I finally got the call........... 2 years too late!

[Andy_Faber]

Never been called and although I wouldn't decline as such I would make it clear that I'd struggle to overcome my prejudices. I've been complainant or represented the complainant in a number of civil cases and its amazing how plausible (and well scrubbed up) cheating, thieving sc&m can be when it means them avoiding their obligations. I've won or achieved a settlement in all the cases I've been part of but the sheer time and effort (not especially cost in my case as I've represented myself) in 'winning' arguments that were overwhelmingly in my/the complainants' favour have left a bitter taste that I'd have trouble overcoming

On the more general point, I have a neighbour who's a magistrate and we've spoken a lot about his internal struggles with a) prejudice and b) judgement (he's said the first time he doubted himself on either he'd quit) and his concern has been that relying on a single person for most criminal cases would expose the system to those two issues more than would jury trials. I'll take his much more learned opinion on this. Keep the 12 Angry Men

[Geoff Parkstone]

Unfortunately, GP - for both you and possibly any defendants who contravene any of your various prejudices - you have another five years of eligibility.

Incidentally I wasn’t ‘condemning’ the current system. In my experience, which is clearly greater than yours but, as you say, entirely personal, the jury system is horribly wasteful and therefore a drain on the public purse. I was just wondering what the alternative would be and if others had the same experience.

erm wrong, in the event of me. I have 7 months to go before I can be excused on request. As Im still working self employed that shouldnt be too tricky to arrange, but actually it could be interesting to do - a mate of mine was picked to sit on a **** trial and spent all day watching films (on expenses) for 3 days if I remember well. Fortunately it didnt extend to kids animals or anything extreme, so he said it was quite fun, but boring after a while. On the other hand several other friends share your view - having had to turn up at the court evry day for three weeks and generally just sat around not being selected. A total waste of everyones time. here there does seem scope to reform the process.

For you, yes you may have less grounds to get out of it and so can send down plenty more for naughty words on twitter or being right wing journalists for a few more years yet

[ramAnag]

On the more general point, I have a neighbour who's a magistrate and we've spoken a lot about his internal struggles with a) prejudice and b) judgement (he's said the first time he doubted himself on either he'd quit) and his concern has been that relying on a single person for most criminal cases would expose the system to those two issues more than would jury trials. I'll take his much more learned opinion on this. Keep the 12 Angry Men

Interesting answer.
My frustration was that (over two decades ago) I was called for what was described as up to a fortnight meaning that the tax payer had to cover a) my salary, and b) the salary of covering supply teachers when I actually only had to attend for three days to act as a jury member in two cases, both of which were abandoned after a few hours on, to cut a long story short, ‘technicalities’.
I’m told this happens quite regularly - hence the description of wastefulness - and I was also alarmed, at the end of the first day to have to walk a gauntlet of angry (and somewhat mindless) thugs who were making their presence felt, thankfully in relation to members of another jury who’s identity they were well aware of, in a deeply unpleasant and intimidatory way. It’s not, in my experience, a brilliant system but I take AF’s neighbour’s informed point.

[Geoff Parkstone]

..... Keep the 12 Angry Men

Except that that could never happen, of course, you wouldnt be allowed to have 12 Angry Men nowadays - there would likely need to be 6 women and perhaps a member of the gender dysphoria community who may identify simply by pronoun. Thats perfectly reasonable but it does rather ruin the simple and catchy name of the film.

Speaking of which, I'd hope I never have to share a jury with the Quincy ME character

[Geoff Parkstone]

... meaning that the tax payer had to cover a) my salary, and b) the salary of covering supply teachers

I actually dont think that is true today, although may have been back when you served. it would seem irrational if the school could claim back your wages and a supply teachers wages, as that would mean they would get a teacher for free of the taxpayer. Every school finance officer would be shouting out for their staff to get called up!

The current rules...

(https://www.gov.uk/giving-staff-time...ce%20from%20it.)

... mean that if the employer continues to pay the staff member the employer CANNOT claim those wages back. If the employer doesnt pay the wages, the employee can claim loss of earnings up to a maximum of ? 65 a day (plus travel and and ? 5.71 for food) - considerably less than minimum wage.

So actually, today, its not a financial burden on the court system as either they get the resource for basic expenses if the employer continues to pay (most staff handbooks Ive written or seen allow time off for jury service as fully paid) or for a cost of next to nothing loss of earnings. Not for nothing does the system allow you to get out of jury service on grounds of financial hardship.

[ramAnag]

I actually dont think that is true today, although may have been back when you served. it would seem irrational if the school could claim back your wages and a supply teachers wages, as that would mean they would get a teacher for free of the taxpayer. Every school finance officer would be shouting out for their staff to get called up!

The current rules...

(https://www.gov.uk/giving-staff-time...ce%20from%20it.)

... mean that if the employer continues to pay the staff member the employer CANNOT claim those wages back. If the employer doesnt pay the wages, the employee can claim loss of earnings up to a maximum of ? 65 a day (plus travel and and ? 5.71 for food) - considerably less than minimum wage.

So actually, today, its not a financial burden on the court system as either they get the resource for basic expenses if the employer continues to pay (most staff handbooks Ive written or seen allow time off for jury service as fully paid) or for a cost of next to nothing loss of earnings. Not for nothing does the system allow you to get out of jury service on grounds of financial hardship.

You may well be correct, GP, but the point was, my wages have to be paid (by the taxpayer) and if I wasn’t available for an extended period of time, my timetable responsibilities had to be covered (by a supply teacher ultimately again at the tax payers expense) and that’s just little old me. Multiply it by up to twelve, multiply that by the number of courts in session - I think Stoke Crown Court has six - and add on the number of potential jurors on ‘standby’ and you have a very expensive system.

[Geoff Parkstone]

You may well be correct, GP, but the point was, my wages have to be paid (by the taxpayer) and if I wasn’t available for an extended period of time, my timetable responsibilities had to be covered (by a supply teacher ultimately again at the tax payers expense) and that’s just little old me. Multiply it by up to twelve, multiply that by the number of courts in session - I think Stoke Crown Court has six - and add on the number of potential jurors on ‘standby’ and you have a very expensive system.

That assertion presumes everyone works in the public sector. If one of my staff members was called up I, as employer would pay their income (and for cover). If a self employed person was called up, they would lose earningsand get a token claim paidfor it.

Your scenario Is only valid by happenstance - your employer is on the hook, like any other and your employer is the taxpayer. Approx 18% of the working population is employed by the state. Throw in pensioners under 71 and the unemployed and it's maybe 15% of the pool of jurors that are coster your way.

Another question if I may - based on my time as finance governor, I don't recall schools having the ability to go back to the LEA (or whoever) for extra funds. Supply teachers etc had to be funded out of budgets at start of year and budgets would allow for such. If it was insufficient then tough - it had to come from another budget eg stationery etc or an increased headcount adjustment if valid. So I dispute that the taxpayers picked up the extra cost in the teaching sector, at all, it was budgeted for even if not used and any shortfall just had to come out of annual budget spend reallocation. Had this very problem one year due to long term sickness of a teacher for the whole year. Cost exceeded annual budget and had to be funded out of budget for IT suite and raised money from parents to fill the hole.

NHS budgeting may differ, don't know

[Andy_Faber]

I concur with GP regarding private sector orgs picking up the tab, I?ve written staff handbooks including same, and released staff when required. Most staff I?ve known to have been called have been ?managed without? which I?m sure prompted their seniors to wonder if they needed them in the first place

[ramAnag]

That assertion presumes everyone works in the public sector. If one of my staff members was called up I, as employer would pay their income (and for cover). If a self employed person was called up, they would lose earningsand get a token claim paidfor it.

Your scenario Is only valid by happenstance - your employer is on the hook, like any other and your employer is the taxpayer. Approx 18% of the working population is employed by the state. Throw in pensioners under 71 and the unemployed and it's maybe 15% of the pool of jurors that are coster your way.

Another question if I may - based on my time as finance governor, I don't recall schools having the ability to go back to the LEA (or whoever) for extra funds. Supply teachers etc had to be funded out of budgets at start of year and budgets would allow for such. If it was insufficient then tough - it had to come from another budget eg stationery etc or an increased headcount adjustment if valid. So I dispute that the taxpayers picked up the extra cost in the teaching sector, at all, it was budgeted for even if not used and any shortfall just had to come out of annual budget spend reallocation. Had this very problem one year due to long term sickness of a teacher for the whole year. Cost exceeded annual budget and had to be funded out of budget for IT suite and raised money from parents to fill the hole.

NHS budgeting may differ, don't know

Again I’m sure you’re correct in much of what you say although there is, as I recall from the dim and distant, something called Staff Absence Insurance which may have been useful in the example you quote.
I wasn’t, as I’m sure you know, trying to suggest that most jurors are employed by the state, however my point about the Stoke Crown Court example was that, on a more or less daily basis, there are around seventy plus jurors who will all require some level of recompense from the taxpayer. That is a situation duplicated countless times across the country and is therefore hugely expensive.

Given the other flaws within the system, the important question, which the government is currently asking and which was the original subject of this thread, is…is this the best form of justice system, or is there a better and more cost effective alternative?

[Geoff Parkstone]

Again I’m sure you’re correct in much of what you say although there is, as I recall from the dim and distant, something called Staff Absence Insurance which may have been useful in the example you quote.
I wasn’t, as I’m sure you know, trying to suggest that most jurors are employed by the state, however my point about the Stoke Crown Court example was that, on a more or less daily basis, there are around seventy plus jurors who will all require some level of recompense from the taxpayer. That is a situation duplicated countless times across the country and is therefore hugely expensive.

Given the other flaws within the system, the important question, which the government is currently asking and which was the original subject of this thread, is…is this the best form of justice system, or is there a better and more cost effective alternative?

Are you sure all those Stoke courts were all busy with jury based trials though. I'm not sure how many trials are currently jury based.

The right to a jury trial has its roots in Danelaw I believe and so has been part of a basic human right for over 1000 years. It's therefore odd that a government led by a human rights lawyer and is seemingly dead set on preserving human rights for demonstrable law breakers in illegal immigrants would seek to erode them for the indigenous population to save money. - It's a very Tory sort of action.

Trial by jury is a safeguard against oppression by the state and I don't think it should be weakened. Perhaps tidied up round the edges as regards the process but not the principal which likely also gives a nod to the Magna Carta. I don't think we have the moral authority to change things such as this.