Jury service

I'm with those who feel we all have a civic duty, if called to do jury service. I have a bit of experience of the criminal courts and more of the family courts over 33 years of working for probation/children's services. To generalise, I've been impressed by the way our court systems work for most cases. We don't have national service of any kind, and so far as I know, jury service is the only thing we can't be excused from without very good reason. That seems fair to me.

Why is it fair? Why should anyone have to do this one thing when there are other things you might consider a civic duty (like giving blood or donating organs) that aren't obligatory?

If you could opt out of this obligation, what proportion of the population would be left to select from? And if this were only a small proportion, how often would the ones who were left have to serve? I suspect that a lot of people would opt out. Of those who were left, some might have voyeuristic motives.

It is fair because one of the rights of a citizen is to be tried by their peers. Not the House of Lords peers (when they are not occupied with Stephen Fry) but their equals, ie others of eqal standing in the community. If it were only those who volunteered, it would not be a representative sample of the population - those who had a particular interest in trials, from one side or the other.

I really do think I'm more in favour of panels fully trained judges.

Guess you're just going to have to bite the bullet mollie.

The idea is that the jury decides the facts, so they don't need any legal training. And any bias is supposed to be counterbalanced by the diversity if the group. Which is exactly why diversity in the group is needed, as others have pointed out.

Annodomini: good point but if Gransnet was a good gauge there would be far more willing than not. So far I'm the only one (I think) who wants to opt out.

I will bite the bullet of course, just as I pay taxes on time and obey the law. Watch out ... I may be tempted to protest in some way

Jury selection is random and the number of jurors needed is very small in comparison with the sample size so it is not surprising that the number of people who ever get called for jury service is small.

I am the only person in my family who has ever been called for jury service, there are members of my family who are better qualified, less well qualified, considerable younger than me and, at the time older. selection for jury service really is random. I was called up twice when I was in my late 50s. The first time although called for jury service I was not selected for a jury, that is quite common. The second time I was selected.

I think it is best that we do not have a group of trained jurors or use a panel of judges. One of the strengths of our system is that by having a group of people drawn randomly from the population you have people, from a wide variety of backgrounds far more eclectic than a judges or trained jurors who may bring their prejudices, but also common sense and new eyes and minds to looking at the evidence that is presented to them. It is I think, as good a system as you can get.

I have some sympathy with Mollie's feelings. I wonder whether the adversarial system that we have is truly the best way of unearthing the truth, or whether a defendant's guilt or otherwise depends on the eloquence and persuasiveness of his/her counsel.

The fact that Mollie is agonising about this issue shows her to be a person who sees the role of jury member to be a very responsible one. It is not as if she just can't be bothered to attend - it's her sense of duty to justice that is at issue.

However, as someone else has said, it is probably this conscientiousness that would make her a very good juror.

You might find you enjoy it, mollie. My initial grumbles were all about the fact that my stint was during a freezing cold January. Park and ride meant an early start and work was piling up. You soon realise that everyone else is in the same boat and it only takes a couple of people with a good sense of humour to make coffee breaks/mealtimes etc., very enjoyable indeed. I took a good book for adjournments and when we were allowed out, the January sales were on!!!

My case was very interesting, if a little distressing at times because a child was involved. I was glad it didn't drag into a second week though.

Mollie you sound like the sort of person who will make a very good juror. A jury needs to consist of a 'normal' cross section of the population, the 'person in the street' - and that means you. It's one of the penalties for living in a democracy. There is however every chance, as Kitty says, that you won't be called or only have one burglary case to deal with. Sit on the back row and you'll be fine. I'd dreaded doing my bit too, but found it very interesting. I was impressed by the way the court bent over backwards to ensure a fair trial, not at all like on the telly. Quite enjoyed it it the end. (Remember to take that good book!)

Given the educational background of the majority of British judges, it seems to me that a random selection of jurors offers a much better cross-section of people.
I remember very vividly some of the very stupid remarks made by our learned friends - and I don't mean just the apocryphal type, such as 'And what is a discotheque'.

j0 I wouldn't want a panel of judges deciding my fate. They're far too 'other worldly'.

Thank you for the compliments. Undeserved but gratefully received nonetheless!

NfkDumpling...what would your crime be? Can't really imagine any of us ever being in the situation but who knows! I'm very likely to be hauled up for being in contempt so don't be surprised if the Daily Mail runs my story!! 'Juror snores during judge's summing up' or 'juror caught playing hangman with the defendent!'

'Nfk', 'not at like you see on the telly' is one of the 'reassuring' phrases I use when supporting victims and witnesses.

I can see where Mollie is coming from as I am often totally confused when I sit in on a trial and see/hear both sides rather than just the prosecution. But, I also find it fascinating so I guess I must suffer from anno's voyeuristic tendencies. (Make that a 'student of the human condition' or just plain nosey)

I certainly don't think judges should replace juries. I remember a discussion in which it was suggested that, rather than an adversarial system where one barrister represents the prosecution and another the defence, the emphasis should be on fact-finding and neutral expert witnesses who are not commissioned by the defence or the prosecution.

Wealthy people can afford to pay for the "best" barristers to defend them. This doesn't seem just to me.

Mollie I came very close to brawling in the street only a month ago when a young mother left her young child in her car - leaving the door wide open - to go the short distance to the chemist as the road had been closed for a cycle race. She left the car across our driveway when we needed to get out for my mother's funeral. A jury would probably have taken the 'there but for he Grace of God' attitude, but judges would have had the child in care and both of us awaiting psychiatrists reports!

Mollie, I've never made a secret of the fact I'd quiet like to be called for jury service. I think it would be interesting
Your OP is very thought provoking, thank you

I wouldn't be surprised if this government tried to limit trial by jury - it has already made sure that those who can pay have more access to justice by limiting legal aid.

Yes, Greatnan, the Legal Aid situation is appalling.

Seems the problem with legal aid is two-fold. 1) high profile cases like Brady and Abu qatada get more than their fair share because they attract the sort of legal defence teams who want to make a name for themselves and will always find even the tiniest loophole to exploit. 2) the legal bods charge so much, particularly barristers, that every bill balloons out of all proportion.

There was a barrister on the radio today pointing out that, as in all professions there are those at the top making immense amounts of money but further down there are many more barristers making very little more than the average wage.

She said that for a run of the mill case such as burglary, the likelihood is that there will be three court appearances, any of which can take up to a day, as you wait around to be called then there is the work they put in out of court preparing their case. For all this, legal aid will only pay at most a couple of hundred pounds which has to cover all expenses including travelling and subsistence.

Certainly there are fat cat lawyers but there are also some very skinny ones

I wish we could adopt a system closer to the Danish style and flatten out the top and bottom ends of all professional fee scales.

Yes, it can take many years before barristers start to earn much money and mostly the high earners are doing corporate or commercial work, rather than criminal cases. I found these figures:

Typical earnings/receipts for self-employed barristers vary considerably and depend on many factors, particularly their field of work. Before deduction of tax and chambers' charges, earnings range from £10,000 to £90,000 in the first year and £40,000 - £200,000 after five years (salary data collected June 2008, The Bar Council ).
Typical earnings/receipts at senior levels and before deduction of tax and chambers' charges, range from £65,000 to £1,000,000 after ten or more years of call (salary data collected Jan 09).
A top Queen's Counsel (QC) can earn £1,000,000+ per year (salary data collected Jan 09).
There are huge disparities in annual earnings at the Bar with some criminal law junior barristers earning under £50 per day whilst some top commercial sets offer their pupils over £40,000 a year. All pupillages are funded unless, in exceptional circumstances, a waiver is granted. Earnings for barristers starting out are sometimes extremely low and there may be a considerable delay between doing the work and receiving remuneration.
Salaries for employed barristers again vary widely, ranging from £25,000 to £130,000.
Most barristers are self-employed and have to contribute towards the running/overheads of chambers from their income, as well as covering their own tax and pension arrangements. They do not receive holiday pay

FlicketyB

If what you are saying is correct how have I been called for jury service 5 times.

Frank