Jury Service pending

Timcito

fretmeister said:

The public's reaction to being called for jury service is yet another reason why we need Civics and Basic Law as part of the national curriculum.

Jury service is how we hold the crown / government to account and to make sure, as best we can, that only the guilty are found guilty.

But some people complain about having any duties at all to their peers, others just fancy a week off work, others want to brag about it later etc etc.

The amount of jury trials that are ruined by jurors not following the rules is stupid. Personally I'd be in favour of billing any juror who knowingly does something against the rules for the entire cost of the ruined trial.

It's an important part of civic duty. It only takes 1 phone call and any of us could be getting investigated and maybe charged for something we didn't do.

It's important and not to be taken lightly.

That all sounds lip-quiveringly noble in principle. The problem is that people vary enormously in the ;levels of inconvenience such an 'honour' inflicts. Many employers get round paying workers benefits by keeping them part-time. This means that not only are they low-paid, they also get no sick days, holidays, or paid days off for events like jury duty. 

chris78

fretmeister said:

The public's reaction to being called for jury service is yet another reason why we need Civics and Basic Law as part of the national curriculum.

Jury service is how we hold the crown / government to account and to make sure, as best we can, that only the guilty are found guilty.

But some people complain about having any duties at all to their peers, others just fancy a week off work, others want to brag about it later etc etc.

The amount of jury trials that are ruined by jurors not following the rules is stupid. Personally I'd be in favour of billing any juror who knowingly does something against the rules for the entire cost of the ruined trial.

It's an important part of civic duty. It only takes 1 phone call and any of us could be getting investigated and maybe charged for something we didn't do.

It's important and not to be taken lightly.

There really should be a mega wiz button for when someone nails something.

Dr_Necessiter

robgilmo said:

fretmeister said:

The public's reaction to being called for jury service is yet another reason why we need Civics and Basic Law as part of the national curriculum.

Jury service is how we hold the crown / government to account and to make sure, as best we can, that only the guilty are found guilty.

But some people complain about having any duties at all to their peers, others just fancy a week off work, others want to brag about it later etc etc.

The amount of jury trials that are ruined by jurors not following the rules is stupid. Personally I'd be in favour of billing any juror who knowingly does something against the rules for the entire cost of the ruined trial.

It's an important part of civic duty. It only takes 1 phone call and any of us could be getting investigated and maybe charged for something we didn't do.

It's important and not to be taken lightly.

And if you were would you want your fate put in the hands of a few randoms called up in a lottery? I wouldnt, courts are a battle ground the outcome of which has nothing to do with guilty or not, its down to how good your representation is, how strong your case is and how convincing a lier the guilty actually is. Our court system is a travesty, Having come out the other end of a 4 year family court battle I can state that with the upmost certainty.

Did you actually read what you just wrote? So, in the event of being tried for a crime in the Crown Court, you want to be able to choose your own jury? Wouldn't everybody?

It is only in this court that a criminal offence is tried by jury. They have juries in Coroner's Courts but they don't try criminal offences; they certainly don't have juries in the family courts so you really can't state that with "upmost" certainty. FFS.

RaymondLin

robgilmo said:

fretmeister said:

The public's reaction to being called for jury service is yet another reason why we need Civics and Basic Law as part of the national curriculum.

Jury service is how we hold the crown / government to account and to make sure, as best we can, that only the guilty are found guilty.

But some people complain about having any duties at all to their peers, others just fancy a week off work, others want to brag about it later etc etc.

The amount of jury trials that are ruined by jurors not following the rules is stupid. Personally I'd be in favour of billing any juror who knowingly does something against the rules for the entire cost of the ruined trial.

It's an important part of civic duty. It only takes 1 phone call and any of us could be getting investigated and maybe charged for something we didn't do.

It's important and not to be taken lightly.

And if you were would you want your fate put in the hands of a few randoms called up in a lottery? I wouldnt, courts are a battle ground the outcome of which has nothing to do with guilty or not, its down to how good your representation is, how strong your case is and how convincing a lier the guilty actually is. Our court system is a travesty, Having come out the other end of a 4 year family court battle I can state that with the upmost certainty.

Without knowing the ins and outs of your case, you are a sample of 1.  

The entire point of the jury is that it is random, and your peers.  Yes some people won't get picked due to bias or other exemptions but the whole point is there are people there from all walks of life, whether you agree with them or not.  That is the entire point.

It's unfair if the jury are all from our own walks of life with our own POV.

What is the alternative? 1 judge? 

That would be great wouldn't it? There is just 1 guy to bribe then. 

fretmeister

robgilmo said:

fretmeister said:

The public's reaction to being called for jury service is yet another reason why we need Civics and Basic Law as part of the national curriculum.

Jury service is how we hold the crown / government to account and to make sure, as best we can, that only the guilty are found guilty.

But some people complain about having any duties at all to their peers, others just fancy a week off work, others want to brag about it later etc etc.

The amount of jury trials that are ruined by jurors not following the rules is stupid. Personally I'd be in favour of billing any juror who knowingly does something against the rules for the entire cost of the ruined trial.

It's an important part of civic duty. It only takes 1 phone call and any of us could be getting investigated and maybe charged for something we didn't do.

It's important and not to be taken lightly.

And if you were would you want your fate put in the hands of a few randoms called up in a lottery? I wouldnt, courts are a battle ground the outcome of which has nothing to do with guilty or not, its down to how good your representation is, how strong your case is and how convincing a lier the guilty actually is. Our court system is a travesty, Having come out the other end of a 4 year family court battle I can state that with the upmost certainty.

It has a lot of flaws. But it's still the best option we have. A debate as to whether the jury system should go is an entirely different subject.

With respect, you cannot state with any kind of certainty that the court system is a travesty. You can only say that you are dissatisfied with the result in your case.

For every single person saying it is a travesty there is the other party who thinks the system worked.

And every case is about "how strong your case is" - that is the very basis of innocence or guilt!

This is however one of the fundamental things that people do not usually think about. It is very easy to claim that "the most convincing liar wins" but in a huge amount of cases - an easy majority - there are no liars. They just have different recollections.

This goes to the old "nothing so useless as an eye witness" problem.

Witness one: The person was 6ft wearing a dark blue jacket with green trainers
Witness two: The person was 5ft 8 wearing a brown jacket with wellies
Witness three: The person was 6ft4 wearing a black jacket with grass stained tennis shoes.

Are any of them lying? Lying requires intent. Otherwise it is just a difference in memory. If all 3 of those witnesses are sure they are telling the truth then nobody is lying. This happens all the time. Car colours or makes, clothing, heights, time of day etc etc. Not lying, just different recollections.

The court then has to decide which of the versions of events is the most likely to be accurate.

Of course that doesn't mean that lying doesn't happen, it does, and it may well have happened in yours. 

But even if a party or witness was lying, that does not necessarily mean the result would have been different. Evidence isn't a yes or no thing. It's more subtle than that. There's plenty of examples of judgments were a judge has make specific comment about a witness lying (or usually 'not reliable in the slightest') but sets that aside and still comes to the same decision on the rest of the evidence presented.

Family Law is often even more emotive than the worst end of the criminal system. It certainly has the most complaints about it and there could be sensible reforms.

But stats do come into play. It's like when the BBC get complaints for being left wing and complaints for being right wing at the same time. If those levels of complaints are about equal then it's probably doing a pretty good job.

If 50% of the parties complain the system is broken and 50% think that justice has been served and the result could not have been anything else... who is right?

Reforms cost money and the govt have no interest in them. The little they do is window dressing and never addresses the concerns of those who actually do the work. There is no real answer when there is no political will to do anything. Until then all anyone can do is not vote for anyone who would cut funding to any of the services needed to run a civilised society.

Civics and Basic Law will never be part of the National Curriculum because no government (of any type) wants an educated electorate that would show exactly how bad the govt's behaviour is.

fretmeister

Timcito said:

fretmeister said:

The public's reaction to being called for jury service is yet another reason why we need Civics and Basic Law as part of the national curriculum.

Jury service is how we hold the crown / government to account and to make sure, as best we can, that only the guilty are found guilty.

But some people complain about having any duties at all to their peers, others just fancy a week off work, others want to brag about it later etc etc.

The amount of jury trials that are ruined by jurors not following the rules is stupid. Personally I'd be in favour of billing any juror who knowingly does something against the rules for the entire cost of the ruined trial.

It's an important part of civic duty. It only takes 1 phone call and any of us could be getting investigated and maybe charged for something we didn't do.

It's important and not to be taken lightly.

That all sounds lip-quiveringly noble in principle. The problem is that people vary enormously in the ;levels of inconvenience such an 'honour' inflicts. Many employers get round paying workers benefits by keeping them part-time. This means that not only are they low-paid, they also get no sick days, holidays, or paid days off for events like jury duty. 

All true.

That's also why the net pay for attending should be funded by the state, and the state gets it back from the employer for employers that are big enough.

There used to be an argument that being called for service was enough and that nobody should want to be paid for a duty. But these days there is no education as to duty / civics and these days most households cannot live on a single income anymore so a month out is a big problem.

The state should be making it easy to attend. Doing our duty should never cause us to not be able to pay the mortgage or feed the kids. The difficult bit of any jury service happens in the court and in the jury room. The rest of it should never be a difficulty.

But as always - reform costs money so it won't happen.

BillDL

mrkb said:

You could respond saying that you’d love to do it as you think the system is too lenient and more people need locking up. That makes you less suitable in their eyes, so you probably won’t get called in.

Hah!  I tried that one but failed.  I can't remember exactly what I wrote in the "any valid reason you are not able to" field, but it was something along the lines of:

"I will not make a reliable and unbiased juror because I have a very short attention span, I absolutely despise all forms of authority and regularly voice my hatred, I am homophobic, believe that women should be kept barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, and I have a complete intolerance for other peoples' religions and cultures.  Please do not force me to attend because I find it almost impossible to contain my seething rage about all of the aforesaid".

I received a letter by return telling me the date I had to attend in which it said:

"A jury in a court of law should be representative of society as a whole, and you form one section of that society.  You are exactly the kind of person we need to create a balanced panel of jurors".

I'm pretty sure if the person that typed or dictated the letter could have added a smiley face or a wink emoticon he or she would have done.

EricTheWeary

I used to be exempt but then they changed the rules and could be called now. Very happy to do so. People I have known who have done it tend to find it either boring or traumatising, finding yourself going through the details of a child sex abuse case for two weeks can’t be pleasant. 

midlifecrisis

Ive deferred it 3 times. First time was because i was getting married and would be on my honeymoon. The other two times i wrote back explaining i was self employed and couldn't afford to do it.  Hopefully they've given up asking me.

WYNIR0

I've never been asked but would be very happy to do my duty if asked. 

Dominic

I've read the Secret Barrister ..........gives you a lot to think about ....especially the 'fairness' of the Court System

Fingers657

I did it once. Total waste of time he was bang to rights guilty .

fretmeister

Fingers657 said:

I did it once. Total waste of time he was bang to rights guilty .

Sounds like it was a perfect use of your time then.

maharg101

Dominic said:

I've read the Secret Barrister ..........gives you a lot to think about ....especially the 'fairness' of the Court System

Yep, it's quite an insight, even if you were already broadly aware of the main failings of the shit stem.

I did jury service on a murder trial about 30 years ago. The jury was a fair old mix of hang 'em and flog 'em, bleeding heart liberals, and points in between. Two weeks, many witnesses, lots of points of law, and some clear evidence that meant you had to determine intent as the deciding factor. Luckily I had a good employer, and it wasn't too difficult to drive there and park up. The expenses covered the costs. 

Jfingers

I've been called twice. The first time involved half a day of sitting around watching various people being called or dismissed, the second day I was called and somehow ended up foreman of the jury.

This wasn't an honour that I wanted or wished for.

The trial lasted three days, actual bodily harm and affray. Luckily my employer paid a reduced rate and the per diems covered the rest. It was very interesting but loads of hassle.

The second time a letter arrived I had a dreadful cold, pre covid. I rang them up, spoke to the Woman who seemed to run the jurors waiting room and explained. She gave me an exemption.

I'm quite ill and my truck hasn't got much life left in it. I won't be taking a train and a bus to get there. The next letter is going in landfill unopened.

rlw

Civil and crime are two completely different things, and family courts are notorious but that's down to the people using them to some extenet.

robgilmo

rlw said:

Civil and crime are two completely different things, and family courts are notorious but that's down to the people using them to some extenet.

You mean fathers trying to stay in their childrens lives and failing because the system is quite simply , well , fucked for want of a better word?


Our courts are worked by sly, scheming barristors who will bend the truth to suit their clients narrative, they will paint the opposition in what ever bad light they can to sway a verdict, they will use what ever leverage they can find to get their outcome, there is nothing fair about the way our courts are run.
Add to that a few random people who know nothing about law deciding if someone is guilty or not? There simply isnt anything right about that that I can see.
Barristors arnt there for the need for truth, they are there for a win for their client, sure there is professional embarrassment but most will tip toe around on the edge of this.
A barristor working in family courts will not put the needs of the children first, only the wants of their client, which is contradictory to what family courts are actually supposed to be doing.

57Deluxe

Wazmeister said:

You can decline but only for a short while...

Embrace it. It's on honour and an eye opener. I did 2 weeks in November...

They do pay you an extra £5.75, which you can use for parking

parking is £14 a day in and around the court... 

fretmeister

robgilmo said:

rlw said:

Civil and crime are two completely different things, and family courts are notorious but that's down to the people using them to some extenet.

You mean fathers trying to stay in their childrens lives and failing because the system is quite simply , well , fucked for want of a better word?


Our courts are worked by sly, scheming barristors who will bend the truth to suit their clients narrative, they will paint the opposition in what ever bad light they can to sway a verdict, they will use what ever leverage they can find to get their outcome, there is nothing fair about the way our courts are run.
Add to that a few random people who know nothing about law deciding if someone is guilty or not? There simply isnt anything right about that that I can see.
Barristors arnt there for the need for truth, they are there for a win for their client, sure there is professional embarrassment but most will tip toe around on the edge of this.
A barristor working in family courts will not put the needs of the children first, only the wants of their client, which is contradictory to what family courts are actually supposed to be doing.

There is an absolute duty of any lawyer to not mislead the court. If they do, the get struck off.

They cannot present to the court anything they know to be false. If a client says "Yes I did that thing but I want you to tell the court I didn't" then the lawyer must withdraw from the case.

Within those parameters, and within the Family Procedure Rules and other legislation they will represent their client's case to the best of their ability. That is exactly their job. They are also there to test evidence. To see if a person giving evidence is being truthful. Cross-examination is intended to expose liars AND reinforce the evidence of the honest. If evidence stands up to the assault of cross-examination then it has been tested and come out unscathed.

In this country we have the Adversarial System. Other systems are available but the common law and most democracies agree this is the best approach. Variations exist in each jurisdiction of course, but the adversarial nature remains. We test evidence by argument.

A barrister will only put the needs of the children first if they have been instructed to represent the children: ie, the children are the client. Sometimes that is via a parent as a Litigation Friend, sometimes it is by a local authority stepping into the parental role. The court can even appoint a suitable professional adult to stand in place of a parent if it is necessary, and they then arrange for representation for the children.

I don't know why you would think a barrister instructed by a specific person would be expected to put the needs of a non-client ahead of their actual client's needs.

A barrister instructed by a mother or a father will put them first. If they don't they risk being disbarred for that too.

If a parent thought the children needed separate representation then there are avenues to explore that, and as they are children legal aid might be available to them.

Everybody wants a "sly scheming barrister" when they are on their side, and everybody hates them when they are on the other side. But nobody ever describes their own counsel as that - the opposition is always the sly scheming scum, and their own counsel is always the warrior for justice.

At some point in a legal career every lawyer has argued for a point on Monday, and against it on Tuesday. 
That is the nature of the job. The client comes first. Personal views about whether their own client is lovely or scum don't come into it. The barrister in your case that you apparently now hate (even though they were there only to present the woman's case) will have represented a father within a few days of your matter ending.

Sometimes that even happens in front of the same judge. But it doesn't matter and the judge won't mention it because that's the job: representing the client in that specific case to the best of one's ability. 

The barrister has nothing personal against you. Your actual opponent might, but that's an entirely different thing.

Don't shoot the messenger.


_____________________________

Now, it is accurate that family law in general needs updating, badly. 

But the lawyers and the judges can only make decisions under the law as it stands at the time.
Sometimes the lawyers and the judge massively disagree with the law on a particular point, but it is the law so they have no power to change it, only to operate under it.

The Court of Appeal and Supreme Court often will make comments that a law is unfair, harsh, unfortunate etc but will say that change is a matter for parliament. 

The politicians write the law, the judges only get to interpret and apply it.

robgilmo

fretmeister said:

robgilmo said:

rlw said:

Civil and crime are two completely different things, and family courts are notorious but that's down to the people using them to some extenet.

You mean fathers trying to stay in their childrens lives and failing because the system is quite simply , well , fucked for want of a better word?


Our courts are worked by sly, scheming barristors who will bend the truth to suit their clients narrative, they will paint the opposition in what ever bad light they can to sway a verdict, they will use what ever leverage they can find to get their outcome, there is nothing fair about the way our courts are run.
Add to that a few random people who know nothing about law deciding if someone is guilty or not? There simply isnt anything right about that that I can see.
Barristors arnt there for the need for truth, they are there for a win for their client, sure there is professional embarrassment but most will tip toe around on the edge of this.
A barristor working in family courts will not put the needs of the children first, only the wants of their client, which is contradictory to what family courts are actually supposed to be doing.

There is an absolute duty of any lawyer to not mislead the court. If they do, the get struck off.

They cannot present to the court anything they know to be false. If a client says "Yes I did that thing but I want you to tell the court I didn't" then the lawyer must withdraw from the case.

Within those parameters, and within the Family Procedure Rules and other legislation they will represent their client's case to the best of their ability. That is exactly their job. They are also there to test evidence. To see if a person giving evidence is being truthful. Cross-examination is intended to expose liars AND reinforce the evidence of the honest. If evidence stands up to the assault of cross-examination then it has been tested and come out unscathed.

In this country we have the Adversarial System. Other systems are available but the common law and most democracies agree this is the best approach. Variations exist in each jurisdiction of course, but the adversarial nature remains. We test evidence by argument.

A barrister will only put the needs of the children first if they have been instructed to represent the children: ie, the children are the client. Sometimes that is via a parent as a Litigation Friend, sometimes it is by a local authority stepping into the parental role. The court can even appoint a suitable professional adult to stand in place of a parent if it is necessary, and they then arrange for representation for the children.

I don't know why you would think a barrister instructed by a specific person would be expected to put the needs of a non-client ahead of their actual client's needs.

A barrister instructed by a mother or a father will put them first. If they don't they risk being disbarred for that too.

If a parent thought the children needed separate representation then there are avenues to explore that, and as they are children legal aid might be available to them.

Everybody wants a "sly scheming barrister" when they are on their side, and everybody hates them when they are on the other side. But nobody ever describes their own counsel as that - the opposition is always the sly scheming scum, and their own counsel is always the warrior for justice.

At some point in a legal career every lawyer has argued for a point on Monday, and against it on Tuesday. 
That is the nature of the job. The client comes first. Personal views about whether their own client is lovely or scum don't come into it. The barrister in your case that you apparently now hate (even though they were there only to present the woman's case) will have represented a father within a few days of your matter ending.

Sometimes that even happens in front of the same judge. But it doesn't matter and the judge won't mention it because that's the job: representing the client in that specific case to the best of one's ability. 

The barrister has nothing personal against you. Your actual opponent might, but that's an entirely different thing.

Don't shoot the messenger.


_____________________________

Now, it is accurate that family law in general needs updating, badly. 

But the lawyers and the judges can only make decisions under the law as it stands at the time.
Sometimes the lawyers and the judge massively disagree with the law on a particular point, but it is the law so they have no power to change it, only to operate under it.

The Court of Appeal and Supreme Court often will make comments that a law is unfair, harsh, unfortunate etc but will say that change is a matter for parliament. 

The politicians write the law, the judges only get to interpret and apply it.

I was crossed examined by a barristor who abused my mental health (anxiety) in order to get the outcome they desired, the barristor was aware that I suffered from anxiety, the cross examination was brutal, I wasnt allowed to finish a sentence in answering a question before the next question was asked, the court bundle that I had for reference I was unable to check as while doing so I would be asked a totally different question before I even found the page relating to the previous, that barristor was very aggressive , and I agree to a point however not allowing a witness to answer a question? 
I wasnt there to defend myself, I was there to defend my children, parents should not be 'criminalised' during family court proceedings.