Jury Service pending

fretmeister

Your barrister could have asked the judge to make sure you were allowed to answer.
You could have asked the judge to be allowed to finish a sentence.

Or just finished the sentence anyway.

As for the bundle, you simply don’t answer until you are ready, particularly if it was provided late. A court can impose sanctions on parties for late bundles.

Did you discuss it with your lawyers? Were you prepared properly for cross examination?

robgilmo

fretmeister said:

Your barrister could have asked the judge to make sure you were allowed to answer.
You could have asked the judge to be allowed to finish a sentence.

Or just finished the sentence anyway.

As for the bundle, you simply don’t answer until you are ready, particularly if it was provided late. A court can impose sanctions on parties for late bundles.

Did you discuss it with your lawyers? Were you prepared properly for cross examination?

I wasnt prepared for that, I asked on a few occasions to be allowed time to answer, I asked to be allowed to refer to the bundle as instructed, the questions just kept coming. Perhaps the barristors tactics were to force me to 'slip up' however I simply told the truth so was unable to accomodate those tactics. Perhaps I thought the whole affair would be a little more civilised than it was.

fretmeister

That’s a common comment.

It’s part of the Adversarial System to try to and make witnesses slip up.
Sounds like you weren’t slipped up. If so, then despite feeling battered you did well, despite the outcome.

Every witness feels like they’ve been through a meat grinder.

It’s perfectly possible to do everything right and still lose on the judge’s interpretation of the law, or simply preferring the evidence of another witness who also genuinely believed they were telling the truth. That’s such an important thing and I do bang on about it: it is actually quite likely that every witness in a matter genuinely believes they are telling the truth.

Whatever you do, do not beat yourself up over it. But also be aware that if circumstances change you can go back to seek a variation on the decision made.



The alternative is the Inquisitorial System, sometimes called Trial By Dossier. It’s written evidence and the questions are asked by the judge only. It has just as many complaints about it as the Adversarial one, mainly that judges end up making decisions by how well a witness can write rather than being able to take time to look at body language and that in criminal matters the prosecution will pick the worst photo of the accused possible, to play on prejudices. There’s no juries at all. 

euan

I’ve been called up for jury duty four times in the last ten years. And frankly being forced to listen to graphic accounts and recordings of rape is beyond what I’d class as civic duty. Especially as there is no duty of care given back to jurors. 

Funny thing about jury duty citations. They cannot prove you received it. 

Kittyfrisk

euan said:

I’ve been called up for jury duty four times in the last ten years. And frankly being forced to listen to graphic accounts and recordings of rape is beyond what I’d class as civic duty. Especially as there is no duty of care given back to jurors. 

Funny thing about jury duty citations. They cannot prove you received it. 

The police aren't that bothered about NIP's (notices of intended prosecution) not having proof of delivery. 
They will pursue you anyway

fretmeister

euan said:

I’ve been called up for jury duty four times in the last ten years. And frankly being forced to listen to graphic accounts and recordings of rape is beyond what I’d class as civic duty. Especially as there is no duty of care given back to jurors. 

Funny thing about jury duty citations. They cannot prove you received it. 

No care for the lawyers seeing it every day either.

I did a bunch of inquests / Coroners Court work and I still see things in my head sometimes. 

guyinlyon

57Deluxe said:

When I was younger (and in boring full time employ I thought being called for Jury Service would be great fun but now it has happened, and I am not in employment (or younger) I am not happy.

Not only will I lose income from my guitar lessons but the reimbursement is derisory - they don't even compensate for your parking!

Where I live is (rural) is no option but to drive the 20 miles to the court each day, but when I contested the issue with the court, they suggested I get a lift from someone or get a train or... walk!

Other experiences??

Serving on a jury is one of the finest things you can do as a citizen, and as a human being.

Sure, it's not convenient, but if you get chosen to be on a jury there you will (often) have someone's life in your hands, in one way or another.

They deserve your attention and your serious consideration.

Pay attention, ask questions, vote honestly (if it gets to that), and go home knowing that you are taking part in one of humanity's best ideas.

Put another way. Would you want someone on YOUR jury that didn't respect the institution or the process?

It isn't supposed to be "fun".

guyinlyon

robgilmo said:

Tell them to piss off.

Remember that if you're ever arrest and have a jury trial.

euan

fretmeister said:

euan said:

I’ve been called up for jury duty four times in the last ten years. And frankly being forced to listen to graphic accounts and recordings of rape is beyond what I’d class as civic duty. Especially as there is no duty of care given back to jurors. 

Funny thing about jury duty citations. They cannot prove you received it. 

No care for the lawyers seeing it every day either.

I did a bunch of inquests / Coroners Court work and I still see things in my head sometimes. 

While you have my sympathies, being a juror isn’t a profession. 

fretmeister

True enough. 

euan

At least not in the UK. Isn’t it Denmark where if you are chosen to be a juror you get a paid year off work, training and spend that whole time as a juror?

dano

I often wonder what happens to jurors who end up on these 6,9,12,18 month trials.  How do they just give up work and home for so long.

Kittyfrisk

euan said:

At least not in the UK. Isn’t it Denmark where if you are chosen to be a juror you get a paid year off work, training and spend that whole time as a juror?

In the UK I doubt if you would get that much consideration for being a barrister...

merlin

I've only been "invited" once. I wrote and told them that I had type 1 diabetes and couldn't necessarily be relied upon to keep a totally clear and judgement free attitude.  Undetectable blood sugar shifts might impact on my judgement. All the above is true. 

They wrote back and said that I was off the register for jury service and wouldn't be called again. 

So far in my 60 years of having diabetes, it is the ONLY benefit I have found. Oh, the second.....not having to do sports in school and be taught rugby by Mr Brian Castle. 

snowblind

Did jury service once: total farce. Took two weeks to decide what should have taken about an hour because one juror was nucking futs and insisted on plucking random conspiracies from thin air and then insisted on going over the evidence again and again looking to for ways to prove his theories. The barristers had to keep dropping books and things to make noise to wake the judge up. Ended up down to 9 jurors in the end. 5 of those left were so apathetic they would have given any verdict just to get the thing finished. A couple of them also started going down the conspiracy rabbit hole just to relieve the boredom I suspect. All of this for someone (z-list tv personality) who either got mugged for £50 or had £50 taken off him by a dealer who wouldn't hand over the goods. 

Conversely the good lady wife got called and ended up doing jury service for 6 months on a high profile case. The case itself was the usual CPS 541t-show with the wrong people being charged, those very evidently responsible not being charged and considerable amounts of time, money and effort all round to fail to reach any useful conclusion.


Money plays too big a part in the whole system for it to be remotely effective. One only has to look across the pond right now to witness the havoc that can be wrought by a corrupt and inept judiciary.

The theory is admirable. Sadly the execution is typically human.

Emp_Fab

It's your civic duty.  Be proud that you live in a society where normal citizens are the final arbiter of right and wrong and not some government lacky.  Real people's lives are at stake.  Stop whining about how boring it is or how "much" you're going to lose financially.  There are plenty of people on this earth who would give anything for a fair judicial system.
Rejoice that you have an opportunity to be a part of a (relatively) free system.  Embrace it.

robgilmo

So, what happens if say, you are wrongly accused, you happen to be of muslim faith, and your jusy consists of some ordinary every day people plus a few of these muslamic raygun types of people?
How can you stop prejudices from tainting a juries decision? Do they vet people? can they possibly vet people?

fretmeister

If jurors were vetted / selected then they wouldn’t be a jury of our peers. 

Our peers include everyone with agreeable and questionable views.

It’s also why there are 12 jurors to hopefully ensure that if there are some NF headbangers there’s only 1 or 2.

A juror can always report another juror to the court if they have genuine concerns about them. 

The vetting / selection of juries gets discussed whenever there is a crime that requires expert knowledge. Usually comes up in financial crime matters.

The average well experienced high street Accountant would have zero chance of following the evidence in a big money laundering case so what chance does a non-Accountant have?

robgilmo

fretmeister said:

If jurors were vetted / selected then they wouldn’t be a jury of our peers. 

Our peers include everyone with agreeable and questionable views.

It’s also why there are 12 jurors to hopefully ensure that if there are some NF headbangers there’s only 1 or 2.

A juror can always report another juror to the court if they have genuine concerns about them. 

The vetting / selection of juries gets discussed whenever there is a crime that requires expert knowledge. Usually comes up in financial crime matters.

The average well experienced high street Accountant would have zero chance of following the evidence in a big money laundering case so what chance does a non-Accountant have?

I dont know, I am still not convinced a juror (not every juror) could come to a conclusion without maybe current affairs, past experiences etc clouding their judgement, they are only people, nobody is perfect, I personally couldnt do it, I couldnt sit down and decide if someone was guilty or not based on my limited knowledge , I couldnt trust myself to make that call because if I thought someone may be guilty and I was wrong I couldnt live with that.

fretmeister

robgilmo said:

fretmeister said:

If jurors were vetted / selected then they wouldn’t be a jury of our peers. 

Our peers include everyone with agreeable and questionable views.

It’s also why there are 12 jurors to hopefully ensure that if there are some NF headbangers there’s only 1 or 2.

A juror can always report another juror to the court if they have genuine concerns about them. 

The vetting / selection of juries gets discussed whenever there is a crime that requires expert knowledge. Usually comes up in financial crime matters.

The average well experienced high street Accountant would have zero chance of following the evidence in a big money laundering case so what chance does a non-Accountant have?

I dont know, I am still not convinced a juror (not every juror) could come to a conclusion without maybe current affairs, past experiences etc clouding their judgement, they are only people, nobody is perfect, I personally couldnt do it, I couldnt sit down and decide if someone was guilty or not based on my limited knowledge , I couldnt trust myself to make that call because if I thought someone may be guilty and I was wrong I couldnt live with that.

That’s also why we are all Innocent until proven guilty. That has to be the default position.

Better 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent go to jail. Known as Blackstone’s Ratio.