UKC

What a waste of so many people's time!

I was called for jury duty this week (almost exactly 2 years after my last one, and even more weirdly my friend was also called). Told to turn up at 9.30 yesterday morning, 100 (ish) people sit around for an hour and a half before a jury is called. Then the rest of us go home. We were told to come in again today, sat around for another hour and a half before all being sent home and told to call at 11.30 tomorrow morning to see if we are needed tomorrow afternoon.

I get that things come up occasionally, but last time I did it was a similar amount of doing nothing. How many working hours must be wasted country wide by this inefficient system?! There must be a better way of doing it!

At least, with my friend also being on it, I had someone to chat with for the several hours that we have so far sat around doing nothing! 

Must be an awful system to work in too, there seemed to be plenty of official looking people standing around bored too.

In reply to girlymonkey:

If the courts were paying a reasonable rate for people's time you can be sure they would use it more efficiently.   Like any organisation they organise their system around the things which cost them money and the convenience of the people with power.

In reply to girlymonkey:

Never had to do this, and my advanced age may mean I won't have to. But if I ever do I shall remember to take my Kindle with me. Are the chairs comfy?

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Why ?  It's somebody else's money.  Don't care about your time do they ?  Why should they care about your money ?  If you were paid, you can be sure the waste would increase tenfold.

In reply to Rog Wilko:

I don't know if other courts have comfy chairs, but ours certainly doesn't! Think church pews! Yep, definitely take plenty of reading material.

You may be lucky and never get called. My mum has never been called, and that's my second time! 

In reply to girlymonkey:

I did it three years ago, and yes I spent the first seven days sitting around doing giant jigsaws and reading. I went down to Court twice but wasn't selected until the third time, when I sat for a 3-day trial. The waiting room was spacious and comfortable and the canteen food was good. We were allowed to walk around town during lunch breaks and we were sent home early a couple of times. Two things came across to me:

The amount of negotiation that takes place outside Court and hence cancellations and changes.

The stress on jurors. In my case I was one of three jurors who were not convinced of guilt as we smelled an easy scalp for the Police and CPS. We discussed it in the jury room on the Thursday evening then I lay awake all night worrying about it and on Friday morning we realised that if we couldn't reach the required unanimous verdict by close on Friday we'd be coming back the next week so pragmatism took hold and we managed to find guilty, reassured by the judge saying the accused wouldn't go to prison but would be given professional assessment and treatment. 

In reply to Rigid Raider:

Bloody hell. That's not very reassuring: it's supposed to be 'guilty - beyond reasonable doubt.' Not 'guilty - because we don't want to come back next week.'

In reply to girlymonkey:

No it's not is it!  But in the end as my late solicitor friend used to say, the law gets it right most of the time, not all the time but most of the time.

One curious thing I noticed was that there were well over a hundred jurors reporting every morning yet in a city where the Council says 20% of the population is "black or minority ethnic" there were almost no South Asians amongst the jurors selected supposedly randomly. Whether this was because South Asians don't generally register on the electoral roll or because there's some kind of discrimination taking place, I don't know. Possibly one problem is the poor levels of spoken English amongst first-generation immigrants.

In reply to girlymonkey:

If you want some relevant reading material, have a look at The Secret Barrister's 'Stories of the Law and How it's Broken'. I read it over Christmas and then chatted with a former criminal barrister who suggested it was a pretty good portrayal of the criminal justice system. Very scary!

In reply to Rigid Raider:

Not very comforting to those innocents who have their life ruined though is it.

Remember, not every person dragged into court is a career criminal that the police have been trying to "get" for ages.

I was keen to do it as interested in the process and wanting to do my civic duty etc. Did two very distressing rape cases (one guilty by 10/2 and one not guilty 10/2) Hopefully never again. 

In reply to girlymonkey:

I've been called twice and managed to dodge twice and was kindly asked if I wanted my name removed from the list. I'll get my self added back know once I'm retired but its a major faff if you are working especially if your work involves lots of overseas travel which mine did at the time. 

In reply to girlymonkey:

This is the problem with much civil and public services. The sheer inefficiency! Inefficiency costs everyone in time and therefore money. Even having to keep large rooms lit and heated is expensive. 100 people for half a day is 400 lost working hours in just that one court. Queues for being seen at DWP account for a few hours per person, and not all are unemployed. Recent NHS experience, needed appointment at physio, went to reception staffed by two people, who booked their bit, then walked to another reception for physio on another part of the body, also staffed by two people who booked their bit. Wasted 2 hours doing this. One desk could have easily coped with looking up details on the computer, looking at a 'calendar' and booking both appointments. No medical skill needed just a simple logistical data input. Think of all the departments in all the civil and public buildings in the UK and you can understand why costs are so high and taxes have to be taken to cover these costs.

In reply to johncook:

I'll add to that the snail's pace of any local-authority funded contract like road repairs and you can see how public money is wasted.

In reply to Rigid Raider:

Given the consequences of the law "getting it wrong", this brings to mind Blackstone's ratio:

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_ratio

In reply to Rigid Raider:

We got into a similar position last time I sat on a jury.  We were all reasonably sure the guy was guilty, but the key witness was a terrified young girl (she was 14 or 15) who's story was inconsistent - so the jury was split between those wanting to give her the benefit of the doubt and convict, and those who didn't think the evidence was good enough.  This was in Scotland, so we eventually compromised on not proven (like you, by close on Friday).  Not proven always seems like a bit of a cop out to me, but it did seem the best fit in that particular case.

In reply to kathrync:

There is no difference between a 'not proven' and a 'not guilty' verdict.

Specifically note that being found 'not guilty' does not mean that the accused has been found 'innocent.'

In reply to Rigid Raider:

You were obviously on the wrong jury. The majority of the one I was on had it solved on the first day despite not having heard all the evidence. After a week of jury service I decided that if I was ever taken to court I would prefer to be tried by a magistrate. 

In reply to Rob Parsons:

Perhaps not legally, but in terms of perception there is huge difference ("we know w you did it but...") being the clear message. 

In reply to MG:

We are talking about criminal trials here. The law is the only thing that matters.

People who think that (and I accept that some/many might) are simply misinformed.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

Err no.  Headline news saying "MG acquitted with not proven verdict" would have serious implications for my reputation, career and standing.

Also not necessarily true - it is up to jurors to decide.

https://www.holyrood.com/inside-politics/view,the-only-difference-between-n...

"“Judges do not, normally at least, give juries any guidance on how they should distinguish between the two verdicts, they’re really left to decide for themselves, how they want to differentiate between not guilty and not proven.”

In reply to girlymonkey:

The obvious solution is already here. Just rename the like / dislike buttons, present the case here and await the ukc verdict. 

In reply to MG:

As the headline of that article says: "The only difference between not proven and not guilty is the spelling."

In reply to Rob Parsons:

Except and clear from the text, that isn't correct (or why have them!?).  Carry on living you life by headlines though if you wish.

In reply to MG:

There is no legal difference. Having the two is an historical anomaly which should be cleaned up.

!

In reply to Rob Parsons:

Yes we established that above.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

If there is no legal difference and in a criminal trial the law is the only thing that matters then why?

It's almost as if you believe there is a difference.

In reply to elsewhere:

Having two distinct but legally-equivalent 'not guilty' verdicts (and if two are good, why not three? or four?) merely sows confusion - as we can see in this very thread. People mistakenly assume they mean different things.

It should all be tidied up. There has been plenty of discussion about doing so, but it just hasn't happened yet.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

Are you confused by the fact that the significant difference is not legal?

In reply to Rob Parsons:

The only person who seems confused is you.

No legal difference does not equal no difference.

It may or may not be wise to remove not proven but for now it exists. 

In reply to Rob Parsons:

I am aware of that - in this case though, it was a way of compromising and coming to a unanimous decision that people on the "he definitely did it and I won't return a not guilty verdict even though the evidence is weak" and on the  "evidence was weak, so we can't say guilty" sides of the fence could agree on.  Without that option, I suspect we would have been deliberating a lot longer as it was a roughly equal split. As it happens, legally it was equivalent to a not guilty verdict, and to my mind at least that's how it should have been because it was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. And, I didn't have to go back to finish deliberations on Monday.  Win win.

As others have said, although there is no legal distinction between not guilty and not proven, there is definitely a difference in terms of reputation, career and so on. Although given the people this guy seemed to have been hanging out with, it probably earned him kudos...

In reply to summo:

That does indeed seem like the perfect solution! I can't believe it hasn't been done sooner!

In reply to kathrync:

Am sure you were given this advice (I was when I did jury service) perhaps worth reflecting on:

“After the trial you must not talk about what happened in the deliberation room, even with family members.”

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

In reply to girlymonkey:

I got out of doing it recently, i was called up to coroners court.

I didn't even try to get out of it, just queried how it would fit around uni lectures.

In reply to jonfun21:

The Scottish advice is a little bit different, being this (their capitalisation): WARNING: IT IS AN OFFENCE TO PASS ON ANY INFORMATION ABOUT STATEMENTS MADE, OPINIONS GIVEN, ARGUMENTS PUT FORWARD OR VOTES CAST BY ANY MEMBER OF THE JURY DURING THEIR DISCUSSIONS, EVEN LONG AFTER THE TRIAL HAS ENDED. IF YOU DO SO, YOU MAY BE FINED OR SENT TO PRISON.

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/scs---court-users/guide_t...

It seems to me that talking in general terms about 'a trail' in Scotland isn't going against what the Scottish offence is due to not talking about any member or trail in particular, and possibly wouldn't be specific enough to go against the English/UK guidelines too, because it could be any one of a hundred trails. Somebody reading her comments wouldn't know which trail it was, and what the alleged offence was, or which year even...

In reply to Rob Parsons:

Have you ever been to court, accused of something you didn't do then given a "not proven" verdict?

E

In reply to Neil R:

Read the chapter on Magistrates courts in the Secret Barrister's book and I suspect you may change your mind...

As mentioned further up the thread, it is a fantastic read but very sobering for anyone who has/had any faith in our criminal justice system.

In reply to SDM:

+1

Having been a juror, if I were ever find to myself on trial as an innocent person, I'd be crapping myself until the judge uttered 'You're free to go.'  Scary really.

In reply to Enty:

I've never been tried for anything. But, as I mention above, being found 'not guilty' in a criminal trial also does not mean that the person being tried has been declared 'innocent.' Believing that that is the case is a common misconception.

In reply to SDM:

I read a feature about that book a while ago and, whilst I haven't read the book itself, there were a few extracts that made my eyebrows raise and made me hope that if I were ever on trial then the law would work as I'd expect it to (assuming I hadn't actually committed the crime for which I was being tried - I guess that if I had been a bad-boy then I'd be hoping for a Friday-afternoon jury with some questionable evidence).

In reply to girlymonkey:

Having recently suffered the unpleasant experience of being grilled by commercial lawyers as part of a Criminal Finance and Bribery "sweep" of a company, I know that I am not the sort of person who functions well under that kind of stress. I would definitely want to be represented by a lawyer, no matter how attractive the idea of standing tall and righteous in Court and demolishing your accusers with a few pithy words.  

In reply to Rigid Raider: Ditto. Some people are really quick witted, but I can need 10 mins to ponder my response. It'll be a valid point I arrive it but that's not always useful 10 mins later, it's about different kinds of intelligence in the end.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

A similar point is often made in science - the fact that the probability is high that you would have got some data (evidence) given a hypothesis (innocent) [and also, typically,  given some pretty stringent assumptions], does not mean that there is also a high probability that your hypothesis is correct, given that data.

Absence of evidence to reject the notion that you are innocent does not imply a weight of evidence that you ARE innocent.

In reply to Taylor's Landlord:

Agreed. I've only done JS once but it seemed like a lot of the jury wanted to be told what to think by the Alpha in the room. It was only because a couple of us kept arguing that it boiled down to one word against another and in no way 'beyond reasonable doubt' that we ended giving a not-guilty verdict. It could easily have gone the other way. I hope I never have to do it again.

In reply to AndyC:

Yes. My last jury the group was subtly bullied by certain members who were convinced of a verdict based on their own personal experiences with similar situations, not what we heard in court.  Frightening.  I was alone in not joining in with the mob and wasn't popular. It's a horrible flawed system. There are some nasty people in the world who believe they are so perfect. 

In reply to Neil R:

For one of the cases I sat on many jurors wanted to convict based on the colour of the defendant's blazer. It was scary. Luckily we persuaded them that this was not key to the case and we found him innocent. But lesson being, where a sombre suit if you are in court.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

Was his blazer white with black arrows?

In reply to Timmd:

I don't think the legal advice you quote allows any exception for  not discussing jury room deliberations even on the grounds that one considers the trial and deliberations can't be identified. In fact since one is allowed to discuss courtroom proceedings after the trial has ended it would be possible for people to link the two.

Having said that I think many jurors do talk about general details of their deliberations and this is useful for public awareness about the workings of our legal system. (I have been a juror at a murder/manslaughter trial).

In reply to girlymonkey:

Have you watched any of the current re-runs of Rumpole of the Bailey on Freeview?  Written by a barrister and perhaps worth watching for entertainment and reflection.   From the 70s so not very PC.

In reply to Rigid Raider:

I went through the same procedure ,except we found the defendant " not guilty".There was a scuffle then in court as he was promptly rearrested for 30 plus other offences.

Needless to say my faith in both the legal system and jury system  took a step back.

We could not reach a unanimous verdict, the judge then directed us to a majority one after one guy refused to change his guilty view.H is view was based on the look of the guy and the defendant 's swagger.

Looking back it was strange, we tended to side with the defendant rather than the police.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

I disagree. If you're found not guilty you must be innocent.

I was dragged through the courts about 25 years ago, accused of something I wasn't guilty of.

A big fat football hooligan attacked me at a cricket match. Unprevoked. He was massive. Much bigger than me. It took me all my might and a lot of huffing and puffing to neutralise him. Although I saved my own skin I got arrested and accused of affray - disturbing the peace and where people around you are afraid? Probably beacuse I was about half the size of him.
The case against me fell apart because it was bollocks but the magistrates came out after about an hour and said "case not proven" - I'm still angry to this day that the tw*ts still thing I was guilty of something.

Try it, it's great fun.

E

In reply to Enty:

You might think that, but you are wrong. A 'not guilty' verdict means only that the jury was not sure of guilt.

In reply to Rob Parsons: So a guilty verdict doesn't mean that one is guilty, only that the jury were sure of guilt?

In reply to Timmd:

A guilty verdict means that the jury have concluded that the case has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

But, of course, mistakes happen; the system is obviously (and necessarily, since humans are involved) imperfect; people who did not commit the crime of which they are accused will on occasions be found guilty; and people who did commit the crime of which they are accused will on occasions be found not guilty.

In the absence of crystal balls via which we can discern the absolute truth of the matter, the current adversarial system is what we have - and generally works pretty well.

In reply to Enty:

Enty, as a PS: I've remembered that this exact matter was widely discussed at the time of the Ched Evans case. For example, take a look at point 1 of the following blog post: https://thesecretbarrister.com/2016/10/14/10-myths-busted-about-the-ched-ev...

In reply to Rob Parsons:

All that is true (excellent blog and one of my favourites) but a judge will occasionally make clear where, in their view, the defendant is clearly not guilty.  Not sure how often they do the dramatic 'and you leave the court without a stain on your character' thing, but still, they generally have a view.  

In reply to Gone for good:

I've never been called.  Part of me is quite disappointed but, I agree, it could be pretty inconvenient (I also travel for work a fair bit).  Ironically, I wouldn't lose out financially since my employer would be obliged to allow me leave to attend, but the self-employed barely get paid their expenses, let alone being recompensed a realistic day rate - which is particularly frustrating if the whole day is a complete waste of time because of the massively inefficient way it's organised (which it very often is).   

On the other hand, I'm also concerned that if everyone who has something else to do is excused, then the composition of juries is not truly representative and, not to put too fine a point on it, is skewed to towards the unemployed and early retirees (liability for jury service ends at 70).  Maybe the answer is that anyone called should only be excused for illness or truly exceptional circumstances, without any further consideration.  This would need to be coupled to realistic financial compensation, and reinforcement of the guidance to employers that jury service is a serious national obligation.

Otherwise, we are encouraging juries packed with those who have nothing better to do or can't get their act together to think of a plausible excuse.  If I were accused of anything at all complicated, I'd be hoping for better than that.  

In reply to Dave Garnett:

Exactly what I wrote in my post upthread. I did my Jury duty in a mill town that has 20% black and South Asian population yet of well over a hundred jurors reporting each day for the two weeks (a new set arriving on the second week so effectively I saw well over 200) there were only three or four of Asian appearance. My guess is that there is reverse discrimination because many first-generation immigrants don't speak good English and I suspect, many Asians don't sign on the electoral roll.  

In reply to Rigid Raider:

That's another aspect, of course.  Obviously there needs to be more diversity... on the other hand, language fluency is crucial.  Just as in elections, there's a tension between wanting to encourage participation and hoping that those who do participate have some rational and informed basis for their choices.    

Not sure what I feel about people not being on the electoral roll.  I suppose it's your right not to on the roll, although you're not obliged to vote, so I'm struggling to think of a convincing argument why not.   

In reply to Dave Garnett:

I thought there was a legal obligation to be on the electoral roll? 

In reply to toad:

I think it's an offence not to respond to a request to register, but not I'm not clear whether it's an offence in itself not to be on the roll.  A quick google suggests it's a bit complicated...

In reply to Dave Garnett:

All they need to do is pay enough to make people want to go but have a limit on the maximum number of times anybody is allowed to go.  For complex trials like fraud they could up the payments to get graduates with relevant skills to understand complex arguments.   If they are paying a significant amount for people to attend then they'll be forced to use their time efficiently.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Sounds great, but as our friend the Secret Barrister points out, the whole court system is in a state of imminent collapse through under-funding anyway. 

In reply to Rob Parsons:

The Secret Barrister also discussed the same question following the Ben Stokes trial (with my emphases):

So the verdict means that Ben Stokes is innocent, right?

He is presumed innocent, yes. Proven innocent, no. A “not guilty” verdict means only that the jury was not sure of guilt. This is what juries are told up and down the land ever day – if you are not sure of guilt, you must acquit. Look back at that route to verdict for the many ways in which a jury could have reached a not-guilty verdict. They may well have all agreed that Mr Stokes’ actions were most definitely reasonable self-defence. Or they may have found themselves almost sure – but not quite – that he was the aggressor and/or had gone way over the top. That is the spectrum of an acquittal  – sure of innocence right through to very nearly sure of guilt. That is why we say that an acquittal should never, by itself, be heralded as “proof” of innocence. The presumption of innocence remains intact – no criminal legal consequences now flow – but anyone relying on an acquittal as proof of innocence is reaching for a meaning that the verdict does not carry.

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2018/08/16/the-ben-stokes-trial-what-went-wr...

In reply to Dave Garnett:

I have to admit, I've always assumed that recompense would be even slightly reasonable.  I've just looked up what I'd get if called for jury service.  If that happened to be, say, just before exam season starts when I'm tutoring all hours of the day and have a huge waiting list, ten days out could easily cost me quite a few thousand pounds.

I presume that asking for deferral, on the basis that it's my busy period and would massively penalise me, would work..?  I'll continue to hope I don't get called!

That people can be called twice, when your lifetime odds are about 1/3, is ridiculous.  How hard would it be to cross someone's name off once they've attended once?

In reply to Jamie Wakeham:

You may postpone once. You might get called never or twice or thrice; it's supposed to be random.

In reply to girlymonkey:

The idea of jury duty, as a self-employed person, really concerns me. If I were unlucky enough to sit on a complex and long-running case, I'd be so far out of pocket as to potentially not be able to pay my mortgage or bills. The amount you can claim is just under a quarter of my average day rate - it's absurd, really.

In reply to Rigid Raider:

Yes, fully understood.  But I wonder if I can postpone just because it's a bloody expensive time for me to be off?  That's not one of the reasons they give... I guess it's similar to 'my employer won't give me time off'!

And, of course, if I defer and they then call me again at a similarly busy time, it seems I am stuffed.  I'd genuinely have to contemplate paying the £1000 fine as the cheaper option.

In reply to Jamie Wakeham:

There's a much cheaper option. Turn up, and just start ranting obscenities, racist, homophobic & misogynistic comments, maybe point at someone random and say "yep he's deffo guilty I can see it in 'is eyes" and they'll soon send you home.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

Unless your randomiser happens to land on the judge - then you'll enjoy a night in the court B&B

In reply to Nempnett Thrubwell:

presumably going into the local courtroom and being rude is a good way to get cheap BnB in a strange town? 

To anyone worried about being caught up in a trial effecting your job or self employment. 
 

Just say you know of the defendant. 
 

Off you trot. 

In reply to Donotello:

Yep.  And if you're the sort of person who will lie to the court whenever convenient, it's probably for the best that you don't serve on a jury.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

The problem is not that people lie "whenever convenient", it's that the recompense for carrying out jury duty in no way even partly covers the cost of doing so for many people - particularly the self-employed. The Judicial system is way out of date on this.

As for "best you don't serve on a jury"; I have heard a few people who have done so talk about it afterwards, and their stories do not fill me with confidence that whoever they "judged" got a fair trial. Far too many right-wing white "persons" are eligible to "serve" on a jury, and their views on the background (colour/race/sex/age/etc) of the defendant tend to colour their judgement.

In reply to fred99:

A puzzling comment. If you're on the electoral roll, a registered citizen, and between the ages of 18 and 70 then you're eligible. Full stop.

In reply to fred99:

When I was a juror several people were rejected initially, either by defence or prosecution. However for some reason I'd say we were all "middle class", though of varied race and sex.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

If you have any form of conviction, then you are banned from serving. In some parts of the country, the "actions" of the Constabulary have led to a frighteningly large percentage of the "non-white" population having a conviction, usually for something like "resisting arrest" for a non-existent offence that was forgotten once the "resisting arrest" was brought into action, and where any witness was another Officer.

Also the "willingness" of right-wing whites to serve on a jury where they get the chance to "stick it" to those they detest (and to hell with justice) is not just a left-wing fairy tale.

In reply to fred99:

Point taken, but not quite the case. See https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/... for the full story. (And note that I was wrong above to quote the upper age of 70; it's evidently now 76.)

Put like that, it does just sound like a fairy tale to me.

In reply to Jamie Wakeham:

Someone I knew served in a 6 week Old Bailey trail and got a letter from the judge excusing them from jury duty for 10 years. I don't know if that's common or if was a particularly difficult trial.