Your experience of Jury Service

[87 027]

Which is how it should be in any free society - the burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt not the other way around.

Completely agree. I was saying this as a good feature of the system. I think where people engage thoughtfully the system works well. That said, my experience has been at the more serious end on the scale of criminality

 

[Sm5]

Having done jury service a couple of times (both trials had the charge of attempted murder) and acting as foreman second time round I was keen to go round the table, explore the basis on why people came to the view they did, and ensure we were collectively comfortable with the position before returning to the courtroom. My personal view is that the system is very fair to the defendant

I think that would take some guts to do that, thats a hugely responsible position, so hats off to you.

 

[87 027]

We had a good jury on that trial - a variety of people with different life experiences and perspectives to bring to bear on the case in hand. And for longer trials a camaraderie does build up. I don't claim that will always be the case, but my personal experience of jury service is that it can be a very worthwhile and satisfying civic experience.

For others who may be in a similar situation - what I said in the jury room deliberations is that the judge will ask me whether the verdict is that of us all. So if in good conscience I am to answer 'yes', I need to know if any of you have doubts. And where there are any, they are absolutely valid and let's discuss them. Also we reached our decision late in the afternoon and I suggested that rather than returning the verdict there and then we slept on it and came back in the morning with further discussions as necessary.

 

[Killingworth]

Age limits are over 18 and under 76.

I've been eligible for over 50 years and never called. My wife was once called but excused because she had caring responsibilities for her mother. Both sons have been called. I know people who have served 2 or 3 times. I'm feeling left out!

 

[Calthrop]

Have resided all my life in England: never been summoned for jury service -- am now 73, so nowadays for me, the thing is moot. Find interesting, the statistic of a 1 in 3 chance of "it being you"; and the quite large number of responders on this thread: who like me, have never been called for this role. (Never any particular reason which I perceive, for my having been deemed ineligible.) I feel a bit guiltily glad that "this cup has passed me by": am mostly a non-participating and not-very-good citizen -- something of a Peter Pan -- reckon that I would have found jury service onerous and not interesting, but would (I hope) have considered self obliged to carry it out to best of ability.

 

[gg1]

Have resided all my life in England: never been summoned for jury service -- am now 73, so nowadays for me, the thing is moot. Find interesting, the statistic of a 1 in 3 chance of "it being you"; and the quite large number of responders on this thread: who like me, have never been called for this role. (Never any particular reason which I perceive, for my having been deemed ineligible.) I feel a bit guiltily glad that "this cup has passed me by": am mostly a non-participating and not-very-good citizen -- something of a Peter Pan -- reckon that I would have found jury service onerous and not interesting, but would (I hope) have considered self obliged to carry it out to best of ability.

The 1 in 3 stat does seem a little high. I've only known a handful of work colleagues over the years who've had to take time off for jury duty, and neither me, my partner or any of our parents or siblings (11 people in total) have ever been called.

 

[hexagon789]

The 1 in 3 stat does seem a little high. I've only known a handful of work colleagues over the years who've had to take time off for jury duty, and neither me, my partner or any of our parents or siblings (11 people in total) have ever been called.

I'd like to reiterate its a ~1 in 3 (35%) chance of being summoned not actually serving on a case over the 53 period of compulsory eligibility.

 

[gg1]

I'd like to reiterate its a ~1 in 3 (35%) chance of being summoned not actually serving on a case over the 53 period of compulsory eligibility.

Ah okay.

Out of interest do you happen to know the chances of actually serving on a jury?

 

[hexagon789]

Ah okay.

Out of interest do you happen to know the chances of actually serving on a jury?

About 50% of those summoned on average

 

[PaulC1309]

About 50% of those summoned on average

I've been called up 4 times. Only once got as far as the courtroom then wasn't actually picked. Been sent away twice after being told cases had been postponed and jury not required. Got excused once after my boss wrote a letter to get me out of it due to work commitments. Such an inefficient money and time wasting process.

 

[Sm5]

. Such an inefficient money and time wasting process.

if your standing in the dock, you might disagree.
What’s the alternative a computer based decision ? , or a single decision maker determining the rest of your life ?

 

[Ediswan]

if your standing in the dock, you might disagree.

I suspect the complaint was about the inneficient use of potential jurors time rather the principle of a jury.

 

[JB_B]

I've been called up twice and have served on three juries (once as fore). It is a bit of a weird process - there's an lot of 'hurry up and wait' but it's not too bad as long as you've got something to do while you're waiting. You get the chance to chat (if you want to) to people you might not otherwise meet. Overall I was pleasantly surprised with how seriously my fellow jurors took the process. The only really tedious point came when 10 of us had reached one conclusion but a lone dissenter was obviously never going to change their mind. The judge kept sending us back for a unanimous verdict even though we knew it wasn't going to happen - a majority was (eventually) accepted.

 

[PaulC1309]

I suspect the complaint was about the inneficient use of potential jurors time rather the principle of a jury.

Indeed. The whole court process is ridiculously inefficient and must waste huge amounts of public money whilst lining the pockets of defence solicitors.

 

[adc82140]

I've never been called, but I wouldn't mind if I was. I'd be fascinated to know how the courts worked. It's very different to my normal type of work.

 

[Killingworth]

Indeed. The whole court process is ridiculously inefficient and must waste huge amounts of public money whilst lining the pockets of defence solicitors.

Certainly costs a lot of public money but many barristers are self employed, rely on legal aid work and may have to wait many months before getting paid, some juniors receiving less than £20k pa. See; https://www.chambersstudent.co.uk/where-to-start/newsletter/how-much-do-barristers-earn

 

[nlogax]

I've never been called, but I wouldn't mind if I was. I'd be fascinated to know how the courts worked. It's very different to my normal type of work.

Same. Something I’d really like to experience and take part in but as of yet I’ve not been called up.

 

[Jimini]

Same. Something I’d really like to experience and take part in but as of yet I’ve not been called up.

Same here. I was called to the Royal Courts of Justice back in 2015, but the defendent changed his plea two days before the trial was due to start. Therefore my jury service was marked as "served", annoyingly!

 

[DelW]

I did a fortnight of jury service in the early 1990s.

Most of the first week and a half consisted of my going to the court at about 9 a.m., waiting around until 1 or 2 p.m., then being sent home.

On about the Thursday of the second week, I finally made it into a courtroom. The defendant was charged with receiving stolen goods. There was no dispute that they had been found in his possession, so the case hinged on the credibility of his account of how they came to be there.

After a day and a bit of hearing the evidence, we retired to consider it. A couple of jurors said that they couldn't tell whether he was being truthful or not, and would go along with the majority decision. The rest of us went over his account in some detail, and eventually concluded that there were several stages at which no innocent person would ever be likely to take the actions that the defendant had.

We accordingly found him guilty, at which point it was revealed that, far from being the innocent small businessman he'd claimed to be, he had a long record of theft and receiving stolen goods convictions going back over decades. Obviously it's right that that information is kept from the jury until they've made their decision, but I had no doubt that we'd reached the right conclusion.

 

[ChrisC]

I’m in my mid 60’s and have recently been called for jury service for the first time. I got my letter in January this year with the jury service date being in March. At the time my mother was in hospital and I didn’t then know what her care needs would be at the time. I had no problems postponing my jury service to a later date and it is now to take place this coming January.

I think I’m looking forward to it. The one thing I’m not looking forward to is having to get there for 9am on dark January mornings. I live in a village which doesn’t have a very frequent bus service and therefore I’m going to have to get a bus at just after 7.30 am. I will probably have a similar problem at the end of each day where hopefully proceedings will end at a time convenient for the bus home without a long wait.

 

[JB_B]

I’m in my mid 60’s and have recently been called for jury service for the first time. I got my letter in January this year with the jury service date being in March. At the time my mother was in hospital and I didn’t then know what her care needs would be at the time. I had no problems postponing my jury service to a later date and it is now to take place this coming January.

I think I’m looking forward to it. The one thing I’m not looking forward to is having to get there for 9am on dark January mornings. I live in a village which doesn’t have a very frequent bus service and therefore I’m going to have to get a bus at just after 7.30 am. I will probably have a similar problem at the end of each day where hopefully proceedings will end at a time convenient for the bus home without a long wait.

IMX the court ushers would send us home as soon as it became clear that we weren't needed that day - quite often we finished at lunchtime or mid afternoon.

 

[Pinza-C55]

I did it in the mid 80s and the case was a drug dealer in south London. The police had rented a flat opposite his and watched as about a hundred people a day visited his flat and when they got a warrant they found large quantities of drugs , mainly cannabis, and various gear such as scales and packaging material. I can't remember his defence exactly but it was pretty much an open and shut case.

 

[75A]

I did mine @ Brighton in the early 80's, we only had one case which involved drugs found on a plane that had been diverted to Gatwick and was a complete farce involving a number of Customs Officers who wouldn't know the truth if it bit them on the bottom. The case was dismissed needless to say.

 

[DarloRich]

Indeed. The whole court process is ridiculously inefficient and must waste huge amounts of public money whilst lining the pockets of defence solicitors.

is that right? I suspect you might want to take a look at outlets such as the "secret barrister" for the truth. You might also want to look into to why it is taking years for cases to come to court and where money is really wasted. However I am sure you know best.

 

[Grumpy]

I did a two week stint on the jury at Bradford Exchange Railway Station-or more precisely the Court that now sits on the site.
As others have said there is a lot of sitting around waiting to be assigned a case, and most days we were sent home early. It's an opportunity to catch up on your reading and paperwork but many were sat around aimlessly/fuming at the waste of time. Part of the problem seems to be lawyers not doing their work till the last minute and trials collapsing. Thus I was allocated to two juries but in one case the defence changed the plea to guilty just before the trial was due to start, and in the second the prosecution decided to offer no evidence. The only case I sat on had a defendant accused of breaking into a house to take some keys hanging behind the door, and subsequently of stealing a car parked on the drive . Paperwork we were given in advance included his statement denying all knowledge. However as soon as we started the defence lawyer said they were changing the car theft plea to guilty, but not to stealing the keys. Utter madness as we now knew the defendant was a liar.

 

[AY1975]

if your standing in the dock, you might disagree.
What’s the alternative a computer based decision ? , or a single decision maker determining the rest of your life ?

I believe that some other European countries, such as the Netherlands, don't have juries. Instead all defendants are simply tried by a single magistrate/judge or a panel of judges.

I think France, Belgium, Austria and Italy do have juries, though.

AIUI Germany has a kind of compromise solution whereby defendants are tried by a professional judge and a panel of lay judges/magistrates (called "Schöffen" in German).

Clearly there are arguments for and against trial by jury:

FOR: It's fairer to be tried by one's fellow citizens than simply by a magistrate or judge who might be biased (and who might base their decision on your character rather than on the evidence).

It gives jurors a valuable insight into how the court system works.

AGAINST: It costs taxpayers more.

It uses up jurors' valuable time, and they often have to juggle it with work and family commitments.

I believe that it has been suggested that certain types of cases should use specialist juries who are more likely to understand the complex issues involved in the case, rather than ordinary randomly selected jurors (or at least that a certain number of jurors on such cases should be people with the necessary specialist knowledge).

 

[arbeia]

Got the call up in 2007. The fine new Courthouse was overflowing with cases, but I did not get picked till about 10th day. We were sent to a very ancient building where only one trial could be handled. It was only a case of what I would think was fairly mild, but what made me laugh was that we had to pass a prison van to get in the place, which to all and sundry meant he was serving time for other offences! I felt quite ill in the break to the extent I vomitted in the toilet. Back in the jury box I nearly did it again! Case closed for the evening, went straight to Doctors and was immediately hospitalised, so wife had to contact court next day to apologise for absence. Never found out what happened.

 

[Horizon22]

Never had the call although I'm still relatively young. Did have to manage someone who was on a very long case though and that was frustrating for all; the staff member wasn't super keen, the case dragged on for ages, and the team was short-staffed for some time.

 

[baz962]

Got the call up in 2007. The fine new Courthouse was overflowing with cases, but I did not get picked till about 10th day. We were sent to a very ancient building where only one trial could be handled. It was only a case of what I would think was fairly mild, but what made me laugh was that we had to pass a prison van to get in the place, which to all and sundry meant he was serving time for other offences! I felt quite ill in the break to the extent I vomitted in the toilet. Back in the jury box I nearly did it again! Case closed for the evening, went straight to Doctors and was immediately hospitalised, so wife had to contact court next day to apologise for absence. Never found out what happened.

The prison van may have been because they were on remand and not necessarily guilty of anything at all.

 

[arbeia]

The prison van may have been because they were on remand and not necessarily guilty of anything at all.

I've not really noticed many cases of driving offences remanded in custody.