Jury Service.

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?

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoff Parkstone

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.

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!

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ramAnag

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 ;D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andy_Faber

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andy_Faber

..... 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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ramAnag

... 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.