UKC

Cometh the hour......

The letter arrived. A city crown court in 6 weeks - 10 days minimum.

My boss thinks I should try and avoid as I could get tied up for yonks. Ive checked the DOJ website and its pretty clear that unless Im a carer or being cared for I need to fulfil my civic duty.

I'd like to participate but the travel could be a PITA. I know nobody who has been a juror so not a scooby about these things.

Discuss..

You'll be pretty lucky to get out of it completely. I was able to defer it because of project deadlines, but did it a few months later. It involved sitting about idly more than it should if they got their act together.

But it's a genuine civic duty, and quite interesting...

It is quite easy get out of the first appointment, but you'll then be immediately hit by second appointment, which is almost impossible to wriggle out of. I say just do it: I found it a surprisingly interesting experience.

I did it a few years back, ended up on a case that lasted 4 days, after this was then discharged so didn’t have to go back for the second week 

I know people who went for 1 day and got discharged as no cases/too many people, others who went in everyday and had no case and someone who ended up on a case of c.3 weeks. So in summary it really varies.

if you do end up on a case it is fascinating as you are being told two highly compelling stories/version of events both of which cannot be true…..if you properly concentrate it’s quite tiring 

It's utterly terrifying, not from a what happens point of view but from the aspect of how easily one of us could end up in the dock with a few simple errors of judgement.

I certainly don't consider myself as hyper intelligent, nor am I a great orator but I listened to the evidence and thought about it carefully. Clearly most of my fellow jurors did not and couldn't care less about the actual justice element of it.

We were sent into the jury room late morning on a Friday, one person actually suggested that if we just reached any verdict immediately we would then be sent home and could have the afternoon off. I am convinced that I could easily have steered the jury to whichever verdict I wanted just by bothering to do it.

The complete lack of concern of many other jurors was what I found terrifying. It destroyed my faith in what I had previously regarded as a good system.

As one of the other posters said, be prepared for a lot of sitting around and delays, but it is still a very interesting experience.

Agree with this, there was a worrying variety of actual interest/willingness to consider evidence and what “beyond reasonable doubt” actually means….and apparently ours is one of the best systems. It was certainly frustrating we couldn’t ask questions and nor could the judge. 

That wasn't my experience.

Even though it was a cut & dried case, we discussed the alternatives quite seriously.

We did get the afternoon off, though, after lunch was provided...

We were shocked to find that we were not allowed to consult the court records, but had to rely on our notes/memories.

This is indeed terrifying 

My initial reaction was just go and do it until I saw the 10 days bit. That's a pain.

I've been called a couple of times, once I managed to get it deferred twice times (once for work and the second time I presented the court office with my flight booking to Tehran as evidence why I couldn't attend, that raised eyebrows but worked). I also attended only to be told that I wouldn't be required, this often happens when the defendant pleads guilty at the last moment. I sat in one High Court trial as chancellor of the jury and the whole process was very interesting if unpleasant, though that was only three days and within walking distance of home.

A friend was on a jury in a major fraud case which went on for months. She said it was incredibly complex and difficult to follow and reckoned that half the jury lost the plot pretty early on.

Anyway, I don't know what it's like where you are but getting out of it the first time should be easy enough, and no need to feel guilty as you will be called again.

Being retired I had no problem attending. We found the defendant guilty of marital rape and he got 17 years. Very traumatic. Next case strayed into the third week. Anal rape. I was all for guilty but we couldn't get there and he got some minor conviction for ABH. I remember looking at the police officer involved as the verdict was delivered and shaking my head. I was pleased to have done my civic duty but it was immensely stressful. Hopefully never again.

I know someone who is unusually clever and is a very good, calm and reasoned negotiator. He was on a jury for a rape trial and he said most of the jury had made up their minds on a guilty verdict before even hearing any evidence. After all the evidence was heard my acquaintance was unconvinced that is was sufficient to convict, so he explained this to the rest of the jury who reluctantly agreed that he was right, so they delivered a not guilty (or not proven, I can't recall) verdict. Then the judge read out the defendant's previous: a history of violent sexual offences. My acquaintance felt terrible and had to make himself scarce when the jury left the building. 

That story isn't going to do the OP any favours.

We have the right to be tried by jury for anything carrying more than a 6 months sentence. It is really important, because professionals who are in court every day inevitably get cynical. We should do jury service because one day we might be very glad of the institution, e.g. if wrongly accused of something.

I did it a couple of years back, and it's very interesting.

I have attended once, never actually got called for the jury. It was in my quiet period so I didn't miss any work, which was fine. A ridiculously dull and drawn out process though, only made bearable by the fact that a friend was also called at the same time! We just sat and nattered the whole way through the sitting around. 

I got called twice since then and both times I have said I work freelance and can't afford to take the time off (I can't fill the diary with work to then cancel it to get the court to pay me!), and they were happy with that and let me off both times. 

Take a paperback, although don't read it in the jury box!

This was exactly my experience. The strongest personality in the room gets to decide the fate of the accused  it was only because I pointed out that there was significant doubt that a not guilty verdict was eventually returned. I was only 20 at the time and it was shocking how little understanding most had. Hope I never end up in front of a jury!

I did jury service in 2017. The first week I had no cases at all and in the second week I had a very short "intent to supply class A drugs" case.

The biggest hurdle as a juror is that what you hear in court is extremely limited, and whole areas of information are off limits (such as previous convictions, cautions or arrests, or even in my case employment records - the premises raided was a very nice flat, and there was no information on how the mortgage / rent was being paid by the defendant) I understand why previous convictions etc are not referred to, but the limit on other information seems absurd 

I did jury service in 2017. The first week I had no cases at all and in the second week I had a very short "intent to supply class A drugs" case.

The biggest hurdle as a juror is that what you hear in court is extremely limited, and whole areas of information are off limits (such as previous convictions, cautions or arrests, or even in my case employment records - the premises raided was a very nice flat, and there was no information on how the mortgage / rent was being paid by the defendant) I understand why previous convictions etc are not referred to, but the limit on other information seems absurd 

You seem to have been called to service twice...

Just a reminder to anyone posting, discussing what happened in the Jury Room is a criminal offence:

"After the trial you must not talk about what happened in the deliberation room, even with family members. You can talk about what happened in the courtroom.

Do not post comments about the trial on social media websites like Facebook or Twitter - even after the trial’s finished. This is contempt of court and you can be fined or sent to prison."

https://www.gov.uk/jury-service/discussing-the-trial

My Jury Service was mostly marked by sitting around in a waiting room for days because variously witnesses, defendants or solicitors/barristers failed to turn up. The jury for the other courtroom had been sitting around waiting for 3 weeks because the case got into legal arguments about what evidence was or wasn't admissible, and the Jury are sent out during these discussions.

Unless you've a good excuse not to do it it's better to just get it over with as once you decline you'll be much less likely to be excused a second time. 

I was called up 4 years back and declined my first dates due to being on a residential course. The second dates were just (3 days) after starting a new job which wasn't ideal but my new employers accepted it without issue. I had sheriff court so knew it wouldn't be longer than 5 days. 

I found it really tiring, paying attention all day is hard. It's interesting to see how things work but I'd be happy never to be called again. 

I was called to Bolton crown court last year. As you say if you're employed you need a very good reason to avoid it (pre booked holiday etc). I got everything sorted to go and then 2 days before got a text saying I was no longer required but that I wouldn't be called for another ten years. The criminal justice system is in such a mess I don't think that's uncommon. 

Thanks for the replies, folks. Some interesting and some shocking responses.

Can I clarify something please if anyone knows; if I 'defer' does that mean I will be asked again in the next 12 months at which point I wont be able to decline so I may as well get it over with now as it's an inevitability.

I will try and call the jury service helpline today to get the official reponse but it's a government number, which means I'll be on hold for an hour and this I'd rather avoid.

I was called up at the start of 2017. I was keen to do jury service, having always had an interest and worked in courts at different occasions. Even don police line ups!! However, I was fresh out of cancer surgery, and said I was fine to do it if the judge is fine with me taking a toilet break every 30 mins. They turned me down and I've not heard from them since. 

Pretty much, yes. Or sooner.

Channel 4 have done a series called The Jury: Murder Trial. It explains the process, some of the nuances and perhaps flaws. It is very interesting to see the continuous flop between determinism and will, over many variations and dimensions of the case and the degrees in how people empathise or not, even in quite extreme scenarios.

In the case that I sat on the jury the only witness was a dog, pity he couldn't testify as it was one persons word against another. 

John

I managed to get through to the Jury Central Summoning Bureau this morning, amazing, straight away. For others who might be in this situation-

-You either do it now, or do it within a year. Unless you have very specific reasons, which they were unspecific about, you will need to do it.

-Work related issues are hardly ever taken into account

-You might get a notification days before saying that there has been a guilty plea and you will either be discharged or moved to another case

-you might get to the court and the case is dismissed for various reasons in which case you might be discharged or moved to another case

-If the case is expected to run for an expected period for whatever reason, you will be notified in advance and you can speak to the judge and they could discharge you

-There is A LOT of hanging around and they have guest wifi so working remotely could be a distinct possibility

Called up repeatedly for the ballot until the day came when my number was up. I was the 17th - one juror was excused and I moved up to first reserve. Once the trial started I was excused.  I now know what it is like to leave a courtroom with a fine - I lost a day's earnings and because I was on a supply contract the local authority refused to sign the papers authorising the court to pay expenses.  

You'll probably get another summons quite quickly. Any time I've rung the jury helpline I've got straight through and they've been very helpful. I am in Scotland though so things may differ with you.

That's ruff justice for you

... which is a good illustration of why previous convictions are not disclosed. There's a very good chance that someone with a history of offending will be found guilty of a crime even though there isn't enough evidence to show they did it. Prejudice, by its literal meaning. Sounds like your acquainance did well and had no reason to feel terrible, except as a result of irrational peer pressure perhaps.

I take your point, and it's correct, but I don't like the idea of serial sex offenders walking free, and I'd be mortified if I'd played a part in letting them do so.

That is the system but t's a bit odd to ignore previous behaviour. There is a greater likelihood of someone who has many previous offences committing another -we.know this from studies of criminal behaviour. So statistically they are more likely to be guilty.  Could this greater likelihood not tip a decision from not beyond reasonable doubt to beyond it of known about 

Specific reasons can be you or your partners occupation where you'd be considered bias. eg police, work as a civilian with the police, married a copper etc... where the evidence might be primarily police led, not two civilian witness arguing who is right etc.., you'd be considered bias. 

Edit, another is if it's a traumatic crime which you've experienced yourself previously. 

One can always ask to be reminded of a piece of evidence, that's not at all forbidden.

You may not get fed (they'll forewarn you if it's a bring your own sandwiches deal obviously) so bring nice things to eat, and read. Some jurors end up doing little else but sit about for a fortnight.

They increasingly are. Bad character applications in respect of relevant previous convictions are not uncommon (see Criminal Justice Act 2003).

I was selected (is that the right word ?) for jury service many years ago but the dates coincided with university exams, may even have been my finals, and was for the town where my parents lived rather than where I was studying.  My Dad contacted them on my behalf to explain the situation & I was defered to a later date. That must have been 40 plus years ago & I'm still waiting.

What it means is that the police, instead of looking for whoever actually committed a given offence, can and will just go through a list of people who have been convicted of similar offences before, and see who they’re most likely to be able to convince a jury did it - although they do this anyway.

There wasn't even a coffee machine in the jury waiting room when I did it, and we were warned to try not to get in the same queue at M&S buying lunch as the defendant, witnesses or their family!

Some alarming comments here. How on earth do people think the criminal justice system works? Its not odd in the slightest to ignore previous convictions, because to do otherwise would be to expose the defendant to the most obvious form of prejudice.

It's not a prejudice to say those with previous convictions are more likely to commit crimes again.  It's a fact.

Its also extremely obvious why that information is not disclosed to juries, and rightly so. 

Agreed, I was on a 7 week murder trial with some fairly nasty details. It was only after the case when we found out more about the suspect which would definitely have prejudiced some/all of the Jury members had we known prior. The fact that it wasn't disclosed before/during allowed the defendant a fair trial. 

They've been collared!

Not my line, but saying 'I'm really looking forward to finding he defendant guilty' during the selection process is a sure fire way to be discharged.

I did jury duty some years ago, it was an attempted murder trial. Small town and the defendant was known by reputation (a bad un) to most of the jury members. However there just wasn't enough evidence to convict, although he most likely did it. Being in Scotland we came to the not proven verdict. All of the jury members agreed after some discussion.

I was called in January last year. I was happy to go, but my employer (GP surgery) asked me to ask to be excused because it would be so disruptive. I didn't think I fit the criteria for being excused, but someone at HMCTS obviously decided that I did.

As I said upthread, since 2003 previous convictions are regularly put in front of juries, if, amongst other things, they can be said demonstrate a propensity for a defendant to behave as alleged (e.g. where they plead not guilty to burglary yet have multiple previous convictions for the same the convictions are likely to go in, or where they plead self defence despite a record for violent behaviour). Whether such evidence should go before juries or not is a ship that has long since sailed.