Jury Service, your experiences

[Damo666]

I was called for Jury service a few months ago at a Crown Court, and really enjoyed the experience.

 

Day 1 (Monday) was sitting in a large room with a lot of other newbies, ~70 I estimate, plus another ~40 who where on their 2nd week.

 

I got called for selection in the afternoon, went into a room of 18 and 12 of use were selected. It was a really great bunch of jurors and a few of us bonded well. There were two who should never have been there, one woman clearly not mentally stable. The other person would go off on tangents in the jury room with whatever theory she saw on ‘Midsomer Murders’ the night before – seriously.

 

Oh, by the way, we CAN discuss the case AFTER it’s over, but not during the case. We are not allowed to discuss what was discussed in the Jury room, ever. But there is nothing to stop you discussing the jury room as long as it’s not about the case. *

 

We had a great Judge who explained the process to us all, our duties and what was happening in his Court. He was firm but extremely strict. Gave the prosecution barrister a b*IIocking twice for not being fully prepared. I felt bad for the prosecution, as clearly the CPS is underfunded and they don’t have enough time or money to deal with cases fully. Not an excuse for a sloppy case, but it’s the card the barrister has been delt with.

 

My 1st case I was elected as Jury Foreperson. We couldn’t come to an agreement, partially because the unstable woman kept flip-flopping every time we asked everyone for their view, and because conspiracy woman kept raising issues which was never presented in court (like, ‘How do we know that the police didn’t plant evidence?’ when this was never raised nor suspected. She would seriously then refer to some TV programme where this had happened as her reasoning that the case was more complicated than it really was).

 

My 1st case lasted until the Monday of the 2nd week. Nine of my fellow jurors from my 1st week were selected for a new case, leaving me behind. I was really disappointed at this, but I got selected for a 2nd case later that day. Unstable woman was left unselected in the waiting room until the Thursday at which point she was released from duty and sent home.

 

My 2nd case we got a verdict, which was satisfying. My fellow jurors from the 1st week ended up, again, not being able to come to a decision. Apparently once again, conspiracy woman kept adding in red herrings and they couldn’t come to a decision. I’m told there was nearly a murder in that Jury room. All the others were really disappointed they weren’t able to reach a verdict, but the Judge said that this is all part of the legal process and even a ‘non-verdict’ is acceptable, it’s the way the judicial system works.

 

There were a few people who were left in the waiting room for 2, 3, 4 days before being selected. I would have a different view of the situation if this had happened to me.

 

We had to turn off our phones when in Court but could keep them with us. Similarly, we were allowed them when we ‘waited’ in the jury room, but they were taken off us when we were sent for deliberations towards the end of the case.

 

I’d be happy to do it again.

 

One female juror asked the Clerk of Court at the end of the 2 week if she could apply to be a juror again, and to her surprise she was told to write in to the court to say that she would be willing. The response was that the Court always asks people to volunteer and many people are busy and may prefer not to, so if there is a pool of people willing to be a juror then let them know and they may be selected again.

 

* You don’t know me, or which Court I was at, nor the week, nor the cases I was on, so I’m happy I’ve not divulged anything which might be in contempt.

 

Edited October 15, 2022 by Damo666
small typo

[stewartingram]

I had my 'invitation' some time ago in the '80s; as I was then employed by the Home Office and based at the local county Police HQ, I was excused. Never heard anything since. As I'm now 73, I am wondering what the likelihood of being called is now?

What is the top age for a juror?

And if called (& even if not, for interests sake), is their payment for attending, and any expenses? Just asking!

[Nearholmer]

30 minutes ago, stewartingram said:

And if called (& even if not, for interests sake), is their payment for attending, and any expenses? Just asking!

I seem to recall an allowance to compensate for loss of earnings, which I didn’t clailm because no loss of earnings occurred.

[Michael Hodgson]

3 hours ago, Damo666 said:

I’m told there was nearly a murder in that Jury room.

Nah.  Can't have been Midsomer Murders. 

If it were, the entire jury would be bumped off, one at a time. 

And after looking like the accused dunnit, it would turn out to be either the Clerk of the Court or or Hizzonner hisself.

[Dave John]

In Scotland the allowance for loss of earnings is only awarded if you attend. I'm self employed. Five times I have been cited as a juror, each time I have done the phone sunday after five, not wanted, phone again monday after five etc through till thursday night. Since I had told customers I would not be available and couldn't book work  in at short notice or start a job I might not be able to finish these were weeks with no income. 

 

For a self employed person with no spare financial capacity it can be very damaging. 

 

The age exemption for jury service is 71 in Scotland Stewart, may be different elsewhere. 

[Bernard Lamb]

1 hour ago, stewartingram said:

I had my 'invitation' some time ago in the '80s; as I was then employed by the Home Office and based at the local county Police HQ, I was excused. Never heard anything since. As I'm now 73, I am wondering what the likelihood of being called is now?

What is the top age for a juror?

And if called (& even if not, for interests sake), is their payment for attending, and any expenses? Just asking!

I was paid my normal salary for attending. My company beleived that acting in the public interest should be encouraged and not incur any loss. I then checked the expenses conditions. I applied and ws paid the standard rate for travel but went by bike.

Bernard

[57xx]

1 hour ago, stewartingram said:

And if called (& even if not, for interests sake), is their payment for attending, and any expenses? Just asking!

 

You get travel expenses and a set amount per day for attendance (whether you are sat waiting to be called or in a trail). My daily expense got paid direct to my company who then paid my salary as normal. We also got a daily allowance for food.

[gwrrob]

11 hours ago, 57xx said:

We also got a daily allowance for food.

 

Just over 5 sheets a day. £5.71 to be exact.

Edited October 16, 2022 by gwrrob
added detail.

[chris p bacon]

7 minutes ago, gwrrob said:

 

Just over 5 sheets a day.

 

That's a lot of food to push that out a day........Oh..you said 'sheets'...my error.

[pharrc20]

I got the call up papers in February last year with a start date in March. But given all that was going on with covid, my work situation and the fact that the trains from Northwich (where I have been living since the lockdowns commenced) to Manchester were only running every two hours instead of every hour made commuting to court each day a potential nightmare. So I was granted a 6 month exemption.

 

And so in September 2021 I attended the temporary Covid Crown Court setup at hotel in Manchester that had been requisitioned and adapted for court use. Once the initial selection process had taken place including specific questions about places in Greater Manchester, names and companies, I was in a group of 24. Unbeknownst to our group there was another group of 24 in another room and like us all socially distanced. I forget which day it was but our group was called down to the court room and to our suprise the other group of 24 were already stood assembled at the back of the room. Walking in past the judge, counsel and defendents was I'll admit somewhat intimidating. Then the names for the 14 jury members were to be selected pooling both groups together. The court clerk started to read the names out and lucky me I got selected as Number 14 doh!

 

12 main jurors plus two extra in case of any further juror withdrawals. So that meant for the initial opening statements, preliminary evidence we were all required to sit in the court room. All of the other unselected people were immediately discharged from any further duties.

 

I was some days promoted to juror number 7 as the original lady who was number 7 had to be discharged due to family illness. A few days later once the trial started proper, number 13 was herself discharged too. Some days we were told to ring the juror line to see if we would be needed next day or not. If not I just let my work know and did my usual work from home instead. Face masks or coverings had to be worn from the moment we left our juror room until we left the court room to return back too.

 

In a nutshell it was a drugs offences related case, plenty of those about these days. Having started to hear the evidence, each of us had our own in effect personal juror desk, pens, bundle of evidence all of which had been prepared and sanitised for our use and remained so right the way through. The ushers were doing above and beyond what they might normally expected of them given the extra precautions going on.

 

Yes there was a lot of waiting around, some days we were only in the court room from 10 or 10.30 til about 12 or 1 then back in 2 til 4pm. Our group of 12 was further split on half due to the need to keep distanced and away from other jury groups on other cases. Phones were allowed in the jury room but had to be checked and turned off but airplane mode was permitted so long as no tones or vibration modes on.

 

Ultimately, the trial ended due to illness of the judge, and one of the defence counsel and other delays including a bad smell (not me lol!) in the court room that delayed things so much that the trial was cut-short and ended towards the end of October. So we all trouped in on the Friday morning, ready to resume only to be told by the judge why the trial was ending and that we were all discharged and a new trial would commence with a brand new jury. No idea when that happened or what the outcome was. It ought to have been a rather interesting trial given the methods involved with the drugs. And as a full group we didn't get to do any sort of deliberations either.

 

So it was a rather odd surreal experience for me and a shame didn't get to hear the full trial, that would have been 8-10 weeks but did 6 weeks but only sat 7 days in the end.

 

HTH cheers Paul

[CloggyDog]

Having been exempt for a time due to previous employment in the Lord Chancellor's Department 1986 to 1989 (Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, so I was fairly familiar with court proceedings, albeit 25+ years out of date), they eventually caught up with me about 5 or 6 years ago for 2 weeks at Reading Crown Court. 

 

Week 1 was sat around waiting to for a case, with at least 1 day released early (lunchtime) and another not required to attend at all. Got through a book or two, doodled and planned some layouts. Phones only allowed in the jury rest area and definitely not allowed 'upstairs' in the court or deliberating room (lockers being provided). 

 

We were then assigned a case on the Tuesday of week 2. About half the charges were dropped at the Judges direction on the 1st day, then we heard evidence that and the following day, before deliberating on the Thursday and came to unanimous verdicts.

 

A reluctance among my fellow jurors meant I ended up being foreman, so had to announce our verdicts (not guilty on all counts) in court. 

 

It was an interesting experience, especially as the general consensus on seeing the indictment initially pretty much all were thinking 'guilty', but as the evidence was laid out and witness testimony heard, it created enough reasonable doubt that N-G was the correct decision. 

 

It certainly could have been worse - at the same time another jury was into week 7 or 8 of a long and complex fraud trial... 

Edited October 15, 2022 by CloggyDog

[Nearholmer]

Common thread can be drawn from our stories, I think, and that is about the strange (to outsiders) faffing about that goes on in the legal process. It’s hard not to ask whether it might be made more efficient and effective, without harming justice.

[Andy Kirkham]

I served on a jury in Glasgow

 

The mistake I made was to wear a suit. None of the other jurors had made any effort to dress up, so they unanimously elected me as foreman, a role for which I don't feel I have a great aptitude.

 

The defendant was accused of assaulting somebody in a supermarket; the evidence against him seemed incontestable, but it was announced that he was lodging a "Special defence of Incrimination". This entailed calling one of the defendant's mates as a witness, who would then take the stand and declaim the script in which he had been tutored - that he declined to say anything lest he incriminate himself. This was patently a desperate ruse to muddy the waters in what would otherwise have been an open-and-shut case; we were meant to infer that the confederate's silence was to conceal the fact that he was the culprit; in reality it was to conceal the fact that he had no involvement whatsoever in the incident.

 

Presumably there is some rule that prevents the Prosecution from drawing the jury's attention to the manifest flimsiness of this defence, and that its very employment was in itself a strong indication of the defendant's guilt.

 

The jury was not fooled; my duties as foreman were not demanding as we unanimously decided on a Guilty verdict. However I have to confess that we pretended we needed more time in order to get a free lunch and not have to go back to work in the afternoon.

 

When I declared the Guilty verdict, a cry was heard from the public gallery "Innocent ye b*st*rds!". All fifteen of us left the court together and stayed together as far as Bridge Street Subway station.

 

It doubtless reveals my innocence that I felt a sense of shock when, during one of the intervals, I observed the prosecution and the defence barristers chatting and joking together. I had unconsciously supposed that they would be perpetually at daggers drawn.

Edited October 15, 2022 by Andy Kirkham

[Dagworth]

I think the strangest part of my experience was when we all left the court for lunch we would have to check each of the local cafes before we all entered to make sure that none of the accused’s or defendant’s families were in the cafe. One particular cafe the defendant’s family got there first one day, we got there first the next :-)

 

Andi

[Michael Hodgson]

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

Common thread can be drawn from our stories, I think, and that is about the strange (to outsiders) faffing about that goes on in the legal process. It’s hard not to ask whether it might be made more efficient and effective, without harming justice.

Much the same as certain other "professions". 

Their time is valuable to them.  Yours isn't.

[newbryford]

I did it a couple of months ago whilst the barristers were on/off strike before they called the full one.

Lots of waiting around in the first week as some cases went ahead and some didn't. The wifi was good!

 

The case that I ended up on the second week was a fairly simple one and the judge gave us a load of paperwork  before the prosecution/defence summing up, that pretty much directed us to our verdict - which was unanimous.

 

Before it all started, they did warn us previously that a couple of jurors a few weeks previous had been cited for contempt as they had been discussing the case mid-trial on the bus back to the local park and ride and been overhead by a court official in the same bus.

 

It was a useful insight into the way that the system works at Crown Court level, that showed that justice can be seen to be done, but in a very archaic (and in some ways wasteful - IMO) way.

Nothing like any of the TV stuff although the defence barrister looked and sounded like he was trying to audition for a part in "Crown Court"

 

 

 

[melmerby]

I was called once years ago but was at the time "medically unfit" (doctor's note) even so some shirty person phoned up wanting to know why I wasn't there on the alloted monday.

I haven't been called since and am now over the max age (70) in England.

 

The missus did one stint and it was a rape case against a private hire driver but the evidence was apparently non-existent so not guilty.

The private hire driver who had picked up the fare by touting as a proper taxi did get done separately for that offence (lost his private hire license)

Edited October 15, 2022 by melmerby

[Reorte]

Closest I've come is getting a letter saying I was being called up and then getting a call the week before that was due saying I wasn't needed in the end.

[dhjgreen]

16 hours ago, stewartingram said:

What is the top age for a juror?

70 in England.

[bourneagain]

8 hours ago, dhjgreen said:

70 in England.

From the 1st December 2016 it was raised from 70 to 75 in England and Wales

[PaulCheffus]

On 15/10/2022 at 14:32, Jim Martin said:

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"

Hi

 

When I did my jury service a while ago the judge didn’t tell us anything and we were left to make up our own minds.

 

Cheers

 

Paul

[Chris M]

Done it twice. Very interesting experience and learned a lot about how the system works. Seems to me it is very hard to get a conviction as the burden of proof is a big one.

Results

1. Accused of attempting to procure an indecent act in a public place (over 40 years ago). Not guilty as, despite a long discussion about the state of the accused’s trousers, there was no certainty as to where the act was to take place.

2. Spent over an hour setting everything up and swearing in jury and then defendants changed their plea to guilty.

3. Accused of being a drug dealer. This guy was obviously a bad un and wasn’t obeying any rules with the company  he ran. He was obviously a drug user but there was no actual proof he was a drug dealer.

4. Two people accused of kidnap and rape. This turned out to feel like watching something from Eastenders. There were some very strange detailed conversations when considering the verdict which of course cannot be discussed here. In the end one man was found guilty and the other innocent. The innocent party was not allowed to go free on account of the sawn off shot gun found when the police searched his house.

Edited October 17, 2022 by Chris M

[polybear]

On 15/10/2022 at 12:05, Brit70053 said:

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?

 

             

                 

 

 

A friend of the Boss was a Barrister - he was MOST upset at losing a Murder trial he was defending; the Boss pointed out that it was so blatantly obvious that the guy was guilty that the best place for him was behind bars.  This didn't sway the Barrister one bit - all he was interested in was the fact that losing a case "looked bad" for his reputation as a Barrister......

[Michael Hodgson]

2 minutes ago, polybear said:

 

A friend of the Boss was a Barrister - he was MOST upset at losing a Murder trial he was defending; the Boss pointed out that it was so blatantly obvious that the guy was guilty that the best place for him was behind bars.  This didn't sway the Barrister one bit - all he was interested in was the fact that losing a case "looked bad" for his reputation as a Barrister......

Probably "looked bad" for the accused too.

[melmerby]

2 hours ago, bourneagain said:

From the 1st December 2016 it was raised from 70 to 75 in England and Wales

Still plenty of legal documents online quoting 70.