Jury Service, your experiences

[ikcdab]

I am starting jury service next week.  I understand that there is lots of waiting around and only a few people actually get called to sit on a case. Sounds very boring unless you actually do a trial.

What are you experiences? I dont mean the actual cases as they cannot be discussed, but your experience of the waiting around and actually being selected for a trial? 

Ian

[Jonboy]

During covid, not called in for first 5 days.
 

Day 6 called in and had an induction along with around 14 or 15 others. Sat around for 4 hours reading a book. Escorted down to court room where they rejected one juror. They selected 12 others at random, so I was sent back up to waiting area then told not required day 7.

 

Discharged at end of day 8.

 

Frustrating waste of time as still worked on days not called in, but felt I couldn’t start a couple of large projects as didn’t know when I would be called in.

[Oldddudders]

I was called to do this about 20 years ago - Maidstone Crown Court. I was a bit surprised to have to turn out my pockets on entering the building, after all my visit wasn't for my benefit! Selected early on, we listened to the evidence, retired but could not agree. The judge was an earnest man, and he explained that there might be times when we really wanted to ask a question, but there was a specific process for this and we must not utter a peep during the court session. I found that difficult at times.

 

Having advised the court that we could not agree, we were then released but on standby. In fact we were allowed to be on standby at home for the second week. Waiting time is tedious, and there was a café with 'comfort food' ready to be bought. Take a book. It will be hard to keep a laptop/tablet secure, but there may be rules about phones these days.

 

[Lunchtimes were generous, and I wandered down to the town centre, where a phonecall to my boss one day resulted in us agreeing an amount of compensation to be claimed from Network Rail for a particular activity. They paid up, and with a small 7-figure sum suddenly in the bottom line, we were very popular and henceforth free from much scrutiny! You can imagine why I remember that quite well.]

[Matt C]

Called up, went on first day and was picked and went into pre trial Jury selection for a fraud case ( 10 barrow loads of paperwork brought in ) Judge then postponed Jury selection till following day as SOME paperwork had been left at lawyer's offices. He dismissed us till the following day so selection could recommence but said trial would likely be six to eight weeks long as it was quite complex. He then said if this would cause anyone hardship they should remain behind and talk to the clark of works. Three of us stayed, one was due a visit to hospital for surgery so was let go, One was a business owner who said he was far too busy to waste six weeks sitting in court. He was given short shrift by the Clerk and told to attend next day. I mentioned I was self employed and had work booked in for most of the six weeks but was happy to do my duty. The Clerk asked me if I was likely to lose the work if I tried to postpone it and replied "Probably" and he told me that was fine, " Don't bother coming tomorrow but your name may go back in the pool for a shorter case" business owner was well pissed off 🤣

 

I never got called back even though I was more than happy to 'do my duty'

[Dagworth]

46 minutes ago, ikcdab said:

I dont mean the actual cases as they cannot be discussed,

The case can be discussed after the trial is over, it’s the deliberations in the jury room that remain secret.

 

I was part of the jury for a local murder trial last year. The victim was 15 and the perpetrator was 14 at the time. Not pleasant at all and some of the evidence certainly made me feel quite queasy. 
 

This was during the time of Covid restrictions so we were more spread out than normal rather than all being squashed into the jury box in court. 
One of the jury got discharged half way through as it turned out she knew the victim’s grandparents. 
 

Questions can be asked by the jury, the process is simple, just pass a note to the usher and the usher will hand it to the judge. On arrival at court you will be searched. I forgot that I had a penknife in my pocket, I normally carry it for work. It was retained by the usher and returned to me at the end of the day, and then stayed at home. 

 

If you get selected as part of the jury you will be given a juror number, and all the jury enter court in order and leave in order. There are times when the jury have to leave the court and return to the jury room while the judge and lawyers discuss issues arising. 
 

We convicted the 14 year old (16 by the time of sentencing) and he got 14 years 

https://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/news/gloucester-news/face-boy-who-murdered-josh-6605430.amp

 

A very interesting experience, I’d happily do it again. 
 

Andi

[Nearholmer]

Called-up twice within five years, which was a strange roll of the dice.

 

First time, a solid and complex case starting on the morning of the first day and lasting, IIRC nine days, with maybe one afternoon off during that. Lunchtimes a decent length, not so long as to get tedious. Basically, quite a busy time. Ancient court room at Aylesbury, with seating designed for C18th midgets, and a cramped and stuffy jury room.

 

Second time, arrived on the Monday morning and was sent away not required by about 1100. That was it. For some reason they had no cases requiring a jury that week, but didn’t know that until the day, so I guess a case was ‘pulled’ at the last minute. Rather glad, because another week or two on those cramped benches didn’t appeal!

 

Don't try to defer or anything: it is a valuable ‘life experience’.

 

 

Edited October 15, 2022 by Nearholmer

[Hibelroad]

I did jury service in Manchester (so a busy court) a good few years ago, it was a lot of sitting about and sometimes days off. I did sit in on one small case and was called up for a second one but that was stopped for some technical reason a few hours in and that was it. So best advice is take a good book or device if internet is available and expect a lot of waiting around. 

[fulton]

1 hour ago, Oldddudders said:

I was called to do this about 20 years ago - Maidstone Crown Court.

So was I, hardly any waiting around, sat on two cases, child abuse and drug smuggling, got rejected on a third rape case, so that was me finished after six days, found it all very interesting, made me really think how easy you could find yourself in the dock, pleased to have done my bit, be prepared to hear or possibly see some unpleasant or upsetting things.

[AY Mod]

2 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Don't try to defer or anything: it is a valuable ‘life experience’.

 

True, but I've done Crown Court four times and Coroner's Court twice. I've also had to get out of it twice due to holidays and work circumstances. The last time was some years ago and I did say that I felt I'd done my share and, fortunately, not been called again.

 

There were a few frustrating cases where there was little doubt of guilt but technicalities brought direction from the judge to return a not guilty verdict. I did get reprimanded for uttering a barely audible "FFS" after two weeks of tedious technical evidence.

[Tim V]

Called up nearly 30 years ago - sat around for a week sent home.

 

Then called up again about 15 years ago, did a case. A minor drug case, fascinating how different witnesses could not agree on small matters of detail, but also how the other jurors - in the waiting room could not understand things like fingerprinting.

 

I did have my service postponed - I said I was on holiday (true), but said I was available after a certain date - which was accepted.

[Brit70053]

It seems apparent from the posts so far that procedures must vary between courts and as time has gone by.

I was called about 12 years ago to do Jury Service in Durham Crown Court.

There was a pool of about 30 potential jurors, (two full juries plus reserves). The selection procedure was obviously designed to keep us guessing. The first time the clerk called out 12 names including mine, then dismissed us to an anti room while the names of those who would actually form the jury for the first case were called. The remaining reserves were sent to join us to await further developments.

The essential good books and available refreshments occupied the first four days of 'service' while the case under trial concluded earlier than expected and the Serving Jury re-joined the pool and we were all sent home for the weekend.

           On the Monday of the second week the Clerk called out 12 names including mine and, unexpectedly after the experience of the first selection, we formed the jury for a trial.

            We were instructed to agree on a 'foreman' - probably 'foreperson' these days, who would communicate with the Judge as necessary through the Clerk and eventually deliver our verdict. We were also given strict instruction that we must not 'ever' discuss the case outside the Court or Jury Room.

            Several of us Jurors were bemused by the *nature of the case as being tried in Crown Court, and by two of the jurors who gave the strong impression they would not have found 'Guilty' even if they had witnessed the accused commit the crime. By chance, my thinking out loud as to why a potential cast iron defence witness had been mentioned repeatedly, but not summoned to testify, led to a question to the Judge, whose reply swayed the wavering duo to join the majority in a unanimous verdict, we all having concluded that this 'witness' did not in fact exist.

            * The Judge subsequently ordered an inquiry as to how the case had ever reached Crown Court.

 

              All in all an illuminating experience which also left me more than ever, wondering how some Barristers sleep at night, having earnestly presented defence, then having to pronounce that the accused had previous for similar offences as they knew to be the case all along, subsequent to the verdict being delivered. I know, doing their job, but?

 

              Regards,

 

                              John

                 

 

[Trevellan]

June 2013 for me at St Albans Crown Court. Nothing happened on days 1-3, but I did catch up on a lot of reading! Day 4 I was called and selected, only to find that a fellow juror couldn't attend the following week. The judge accepted this and the process was re-started. I was selected again and sworn in with the other 11. We only had time to hear the case for the prosecution before being dismissed until the following Monday.

 

The case was a pub brawl in Watford, with two defendants on trial. I found the experience fascinating, yet also immensely frustrating, for similar reasons to that which Andy states above. The evidence pointed strongly to the girlfriend of one defendant provoking the brawl, yet she had refused to provide a statement to police. She was not called as a witness either and I think that was a wise decision. She was in court on one occasion and her body language spoke eloquently of someone used to getting her own way. I have little doubt the prosecuting counsel would have made mincemeat of her.

 

The two defence counsellors had a very weak case and simply tried to discredit the prosecution witnesses, on one occasion eliciting a rebuke from the judge. Ultimately, one defendant was found guilty and got 100 hours community service, the other was found not guilty. I was unhappy with the latter, but the judge's direction made it difficult to come to any other conclusion. All evidence pointed to him being complicit, I'll say no more than that.

 

In summary, I spent two weeks commuting to and from court. It was an interesting insight into the Criminal Justice System but I was also concerned that seven days of court time was taken up with a pub brawl. While everyone wants to see a fair trial and justice done, the laboured and tedious methods of one defence counsellor cost us a good two days of court time and was completely ineffectual.

 

The law governs our daily lives, so If you have the opportunity to undertake jury service I'd recommend you make the most of it and treat it as a valuable learning experience.

[Nearholmer]

46 minutes ago, Brit70053 said:

led to a question to the Judge

The fact that questions from the jury to the judge can be so important was one of my lessons from the experience, even if the answer is sometimes words to the affect “That is a good and obvious question to pose, but since neither prosecution or defence have asked it, I’m afraid I can’t ask it for you.”.

[Michael Hodgson]

6 minutes ago, Trevellan said:

The law governs our daily lives, so If you have the opportunity to undertake jury service I'd recommend you make the most of it and treat it as a valuable learning experience.

I'm happy to say I've escaped this lottery so far, and in a couple of years time I'll be ineligible anyway on grounds of senility.  (Does that apply to judges too ?)

 

There has been a lot of talk of the legal trade wasting a hell of a lot of everybody's time keeping them sitting around doing SFA.  I get the impression that the lawyers themselves also do a lot of that.  Quite apart from when they're on strike - so some cases presumably got adjourned till it was over, further mucking the jurors about?  There's apparently a long backlog of cases to be heard - some of the accused presumably being incarcerated pending trial only to be acquitted in due course. 

 

Perhaps those of you who have been involved have a more favourable impression, but I can't help thinking it all sounds as antiquated and inefficient as their powdered wigs.

 

8 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

The fact that questions from the jury to the judge can be so important was one of my lessons from the experience, even if the answer is sometimes words to the affect “That is a good and obvious question to pose, but since neither prosecution or defence have asked it, I’m afraid I can’t ask it for you.”.

 

That only confirms my impression that the system is bureacratic and designed to perpetuate the employment of bewigged windbags rather than seeking to establish the truth or otherwise of allegations.

[57xx]

29 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

That only confirms my impression that the system is bureacratic and designed to perpetuate the employment of bewigged windbags rather than seeking to establish the truth or otherwise of allegations.

 

Do not take Nearholmer's statement as a fact that every question gets rebutted (he doesn't even imply that!). On the trial I was on, a couple of very pertinent questions were asked by the Jury, which the Judge thanked them for, and then proceeded to ask them to the relevant barrister. We didn't have any questions declined.

Edited October 15, 2022 by 57xx

[fulton]

7 minutes ago, 57xx said:

 

Do not take Nearholmer's statement as a fact that every question gets rebutted. On the trial I was on, a couple of very pertinent questions were asked by the Jury, which the Judge thanked them for, and then proceeded to ask them to the relevant barrister. We didn't have any questions declined.

That was my experience as well, the Jury asked questions via the Usher, on two occasions, each time an answer came back. 

[Nearholmer]

 

28 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

That only confirms my impression that the system is bureacratic and designed to perpetuate the employment of bewigged windbags rather than seeking to establish the truth or otherwise of allegations.

It might be worth re-reading what I wrote, looking out for the word “sometimes”, which is in there.

 

We did get answers to other questions, and they were useful.

 

Thst having been said, I wasn’t mega-impressed by the lawyers on either side. They sure as heck knew how to play legal chess, but their questions to witnesses, especially their cross-examination of experts, didn’t seem at all penetrating.

 

 

Edited October 15, 2022 by Nearholmer

[Jim Martin]

1 hour ago, Trevellan said:

Ultimately, one defendant was found guilty and got 100 hours community service, the other was found not guilty. I was unhappy with the latter, but the judge's direction made it difficult to come to any other conclusion.

I've never done jury service - for a long time I was exempted as "a commissioned officer of HM Customs and Excise" and I haven't been called since they changed the rules to remove the exemption - but I did do a couple of days observing in court as part of my training. We were in Luton Crown Court, watching the closing stages of a sexual assault case. We weren't there for the bulk of the evidence, but heard the closing arguments by each side. What I learned was that QCs are professionally persuasive people. After the Prosecution's address, I was ready to vault over the barrier and string the defendant up myself, so obvious was his guilt. By the end of the Defence's, I'd have joined a protest outside the court against this grievous miscarriage of justice. Looking at the jury, it seemed pretty clear that they were in the same boat.

 

When I mentioned this to our trainer, he said: "don't worry about that. The judge will tell them if he's guilty or not"

[D-A-T]

I found Jury Duty fascinating and would gladly do it again. However I found the time management of the Courts archaic, inefficient and, if I’m honest, extremely frustrating.

 

The first case we heard was one that had all the lawyers and the Judge rushing to get their text books! We had to decide if the accused was ‘mute of malice or mute due to "visitation of God"’.  Quite simply the accused wouldn’t speak to anyone; lawyers, prison wardens, visitors, family, not a soul.

 

The second case would have been fascinating. Love, rivalry, cannabis farming and arson. We’d just heard the opening statements when a fellow Juror recognised the Defendant’s girlfriend’s Father. A note was passed to the Judge and as the case was barely opened we were all dismissed.

 

The last case was an attack by one prisoner on another in the local Prison. A typical story but what struck me was how useless the Barristers were. One could hardly string a sentence together. The other seemed to think he was above such things and had to be rebuked by the Judge.

 

All in all the two weeks could have been condensed into 2 to 3 days if properly organised.

 

Take a good book!

[Bernard Lamb]

3 hours ago, AY Mod said:

 

True, but I've done Crown Court four times and Coroner's Court twice. I've also had to get out of it twice due to holidays and work circumstances. The last time was some years ago and I did say that I felt I'd done my share and, fortunately, not been called again.

 

There were a few frustrating cases where there was little doubt of guilt but technicalities brought direction from the judge to return a not guilty verdict. I did get reprimanded for uttering a barely audible "FFS" after two weeks of tedious technical evidence.

I was on a case like that once.

Two of us said not guilty and the others said guilty on our first round of comments.

We then went through the various technical points and all agreed that it was ffairly certain the chap had committed the crime but he had to be found not guilty.

I think we had to go back to the judge three times to have points of law clarified.

We were not prompted but when we did return to court were praised for making the correct decision.

The police then asked for the chap to be remanded in custody as they were going to bring more serious charges against him.

It looked like a very expensive and time consuming exercise to frighten him.

Bernard

 

 

 

[Michael Hodgson]

3 minutes ago, D-A-T said:

 

The first case we heard was one that had all the lawyers and the Judge rushing to get their text books! We had to decide if the accused was ‘mute of malice or mute due to "visitation of God"’.  ......

 

Take a good book!

The Good Book is to decide whether it's the Almighty who should be on trial?

[Ben B]

I was picked straight as I finished Uni for a case at Wolverhampton court; I was due for some major dental surgery, so they grudgingly shifted my service by two weeks but said I could only defer it the once... it was a bit frustrating, I should have been looking for jobs having just moved home from Carlisle but was stuck with it.  I was called-up for two weeks, I spent effectively a week and a half sat in a waiting room doodling comics or reading, then just as it looked like I wasn't going to be called, bang on the last Thursday in I went.  All very nervous, bit exciting... but the case was dismissed in under an hour as they realised they'd bought the wrong charges against the accused.

The one thing that scared me a bit was the warning about being recognised and followed home; some jurors on another case had an incident where some friends of the accused had been milling around in the lobby, and clocked which door the Jurors for their mates case were using to and from their waiting room.  There was meant to have been an incident where one of the jurors had been followed to the nearby bus station.  All in all, to me it felt like a bit of a waste of time and effort, and frustrating seeing the case I was finally called for collapse in under an hour...  

 

...Though I was glad not to be called on a bigger case that would have gone on longer.  In December 2020 my wife was called up to sit as a juror on an embezzlement case, which promised to last months, but after two weeks it was pulled as new evidence (of even grander, if that's the right term, embezzlement) had come to light, for which they were preparing new charges and a fresh Jury some weeks later.  Her biggest problem was an aggressive security guard who delighted in bag searches and interrogations every morning, particularly of female jurors.  She ended up putting in a complaint.

[Adrian Stevenson]

25 years ago got called up. Sat around for a couple of days then got picked. Rape trial. Listened to a mornings evidence. Went for lunch and returned to the court for the judge to make an annoucement that the trial was to stop as the women had now admitted to making the whole thing up. Never found out if she got charged for this? Felt very sorry for the poor chap involved. So we were sent home. 

 

Cheers, Ade.

[pete_mcfarlane]

I've done it twice, once at Lincoln in 2001, and 10 years later in Nottingham. Lincoln wasn't busy, so after 3 days of waiting (you get warned about this) we got a drug dealer to try but the defendant changed their plea to guilty at the last moment*. So discharged for the day, and told to check in by phone to see if we were needed again, which we weren't. Lincoln Crown court is at the castle, and very nice. 

 

(*After they turned up. Defendant was from one of the rougher parts of Nottingham, turned up at Nottingham Crown court. trial not listed, phoned solicitor, told to go to Lincoln, got train, went to Lincoln Magistrates court. told to go to Crown court (about 1.5 miles uphill), by which point we'd all gone to lunch. As the judge said whilst we were waiting, "this is unfortunately typical with defendants")

 

Second time at Nottingham I got two trials. First one was what could be called a pae*do*hile but in reality was a 20 year old man who was too dim to realise that he was now too old to chase 14 year old girls like he could when he was 16.

 

Lots of time spent wading through the transcripts of their text conversations (on fanfold printer paper, the only time I've encountered this in the last 25 years) and having to be shown sample images that the Police had found on his laptop (not great). Part of the defense hinged on who had access to the password for said laptop (he lived in a shared house), so the highlight of the trial was the (lady, West Indian) judge summing up ("there is some difference between the prosecution and defense over who knew the password, which was  f*ckmehard123". We found him guilty. Sentencing happened later, and he got something suspended.  

 

Second trial was a wannabe drug dealer whose mates had let him hide the £20k of coke in his flat, and was taking the hit for the Police finding it. Slightly sad as he was clearly very stupid, but not quite stupid enough for this to be taken into account by the system. They struggled to get him to pick what oath to read before giving evidence in his defense - you get two versions, depending on whether you believe in God or not. He couldn't answer that question, which is something you're normally expected to have thought about at some point in your life. "Whichever one mate" he said to the Judge.

 

55 minutes ago, Ben B said:

The one thing that scared me a bit was the warning about being recognised and followed home; some jurors on another case had an incident where some friends of the accused had been milling around in the lobby, and clocked which door the Jurors for their mates case were using to and from their waiting room.  There was meant to have been an incident where one of the jurors had been followed to the nearby bus station.  All in all, to me it felt like a bit of a waste of time and effort, and frustrating seeing the case I was finally called for collapse in under an hour...  

 

The drug dealers 'mates' sat in the witness box staring at us, which did worry some of the jurors as they thought it was an attempt at intimidation (they were probably just trying to 'read' our reactions). One of them kept rubbing his nose every 30 seconds, which everyone noticed and probably didn't help their mate on trial for dealing cocaine....

 

Defendant was found guilty. Let's just say that if you ever hear 'the jury only took 30 minutes to reach a verdict' on TV the reality is that this includes the time spent eating lunch. He was sentenced (to about 4 years) on the day and led away. 

 

Take loads of books is the main bit of advice I'd give. You might find somebody interesting to talk to (I remember a lengthy discussion about Ernst Junger's 'Storm of steel' at one point) but you don't want to be the bloke at Lincoln court who'd read his Daily Heil and was huffing and looking at his watch every 30 seconds. 

 

Oh and remember to switch your mobile off before going in to the court room. About 17 times, in the same way you do with checking your passport is till in your bag at the airport. 

Edited October 15, 2022 by pete_mcfarlane

[AndrueC]

Closest I've ever got to any kind of court appearance was many years ago when I was a data recovery engineer. Back then computer forensics was new and we were at the leading edge with me helping develop the tools. Thankfully I was never involved in the processing. But my colleague who was took a sick day when the SFO turned up to collect our processed evidence so I had to sign for it. A couple of days later I got a letter asking me what my vacation plans were for the next two years.

 

For a while I was tempted to write 'Many and various' but in the end felt that 'unknown' would be less likely to get me into trouble. In the end nothing came of it (apart from the SFO making a general bog of things and having to be restructured).

 

However I can be pleased that my employer helped put away Gary Glitter and get Dame Shirley Porter's knuckles rapped.

Edited October 15, 2022 by AndrueC