just thoght i'd say bye as i might not be in for a bit, i might be off work as i'm being put forward for jury duty.

hopefully talk to you all soon!

kim

Oh! poor you what a bind.

Ah doing your civic duty - hope you get an interesting case not a week of hanging about waiting to be called :-D

SNAP!!!!!!! :)

I got off with having to be there Monday and Tuesday but have to attend at lunchtime today. 

Joan

I would love to have a go at jury service but the only time I was called, many years ago, my boss grumbled and said he would write to get me off.  I was only a humble accounts clerk so told him to go ahead never thinking they would take any notice of him but they did and I didn't get to do it!

My OH has been called twice me never! take a good book.

I've done it twice, if you are lucky you'll get a case that will last a week or so, if not as Whistler says take a good book you can end up sitting around for a while.

I got called and would of liked to have done it but it was the same week i had booked off work during the school hols and was planning on having family days out. Couldnt change my week off work for various reasons.

But because i wasnt actually booked to go away anywere i was still suppose to attend. If you had to show your tickets as proof. in the end i had to get my boss to write and say i had booked the time of and was going to be going away to stay with family so couldnt attend.

I got called when i was just 18...many moons ago,in fact 33yrs ago. Didnt have to go in as not wanted both days..prob thought i was bit young.
My hubby got called and was there on a case for a week,he said he enjoyed it,very interesting stuff.
My parents are both 80 and never been called.

i did it 19years ago the case lasted 3weeks ...the worst 3weeks of my life LOL soooo boaring !!! i just wanted to be at home with my son he was only 3month old at the time ,but id love to do it again ....just for a rest ;) !!

I found the waiting around a waste of time and the case very distressing and reaching or rather not reaching a verdict decision even worse, I am now thankfully too old but suffered from a sort of post stress disorder for several years and even now writing about it makes me feel ill.

Kim

Hope you were as lucky as me, arrived at 2.15 and was dismissed (not needed) by 3pm.

Spent the rest of the afternoon with the dogs out walking.

Joan

I am now thankfully too old but suffered from a sort of post stress disorder for several years and even now writing about it makes me feel ill.

Sorry for the affect it had on you Nova,how awful for you.

I managed to opt out twice. I didn't know that there was an age limit, what is it? Now that I don't have young children and I work from home I could do jury duty without a worry, often wondered whether they may attempt one day to ask me a third time, (or is it two strikes and your out :-D ) but if they have an age limit perhaps not.

I have been called 5 times in the last few years but never made it to the final cut.  Must have one of those faces. lol

When you are waiting in the waiting room do not sit with your head against the wall - the walls are disgusting and have greasy head marks on them.  The witness rooms are the same - vile!

Think the upper limit is 70 and the lower 18, it can be distressing as you have to screw up no end of courage to go against the flow, but if your conscious makes you uneasy you have to go with it no matter how much pressure is put on you.

My Auntie was chosen for Jury duty. She had a holiday booked but wasn't allowed to take it! I'd find it really interesting but would hate to have someones fate in my hands. Good luck Kim. :)

i have always thought this would be interesteing to do but i certainly wouldnt want to sit on a high profile case or something that would be stressfull ie a case about child abuse or rape or murder that would be absolutley awful to sit on a jury for

Nova, my mum did jury duty a couple of years ago.  She'd never done it before.  All they had to go by was witness testimonies - based on these my mum decided the chap was guilty.  The rest of the jury decided not to convict the chap on the witness statements.  Why?  Becase the witnesses were all Police Officers and obviously the Police are corrupt and therefore cannot be trusted.  Needless to say the guy got off with it.  I am not surprised many people find it stressful.  Mum was so shocked and disgusted afterwards.

they say the justice system is fair but its totally untrue if their is a loophole they will find it and abuse it.

You are only as strong as your weakest link and unfortunately there are many weak links in the justice system, local government etc etc.  It's very sad.  The same could be said about the ABS - it's only as good as the people that chose to be a part of it (corrupt individuals will naturally corrupt the system).

May be I was the weak link but I had to do what I did if I was to live with myself. In my case there was this know it all aggressive type who happened to be Forman and announced at our first coffee break that the defendant was a thug and quilt, at this stage we had not heard anything about the case except the opening statements and the plea.

I listen carefully to the evidence laid before us and can honestly say that although I also thought the defendant was in all probability guilty there was nothing in the evidence that made it conclusive and those who were witnesses against were not believable either continually changing the story.

So I was not prepared to say this individual was guilty of GBH as far as I was concerned the only matter beyond reasonable doubt was that the chap doing the accusing had been injured but how and by whom was not at all clear so I and one other refused to join the others who had agreed with the foreman who said when we went to the jury room "right this won't take long and we can all get off for a long weekend - he is a thug and guilty of something even if not this" This was at 11.15 and at 4.30 after many visits back to the court the judge who would not accept a majority verdict ordered a retrial and told the prosecuting people to make sure they presented their case in a more efficient manner.

All that was bad enough but the worst thing was the bulling that went on in the Jury Room and holding up against some very strong willed people who were not only determined to get their own way but also to get of for the weekend. We started on the first vote 6 to 4 and during the course of the day 2 people changed their minds but two of us would or could not and in the end I went home in tears on the bus, the same bus as the accused and his father.

What a horrible experience Nova :-(  There are many people in this world that think those that shout the loudest are right and to be followed.  Very often doing the right thing is the hardest thing to do - but well done you! Truly.  You did absolutely the right thing.  There is so much bullying going on in the world, and it's allowed to go on in many cases which is the sickening thing! 
You were not the weak link, not at all.  The weak followers who did not have their own voice but went with the loud-mouth know-it-all are the weak links.

phew! wasnt picked but what a waste of a day! had to be there at 10.15, had to stand for near enough an hour as the room was packed then all got sent away to come back at 2, again hung around for ages and then wasn't picked! gotta call tonight and see if they need me for one on monday but hopefully not.

Nova well done you for standing by your convictions. this is one of the reasons i am not that keen on the jury system- it can end up that someones future rests on how persuasive or unpleasant one juror can be.

additionally how are a jury to appropriately judge a case in many instances? i'm an educated person but i doubt i could understand the ins and outs of a fraud case, or if two different forensics people said differing things how are we to know who is more likely to be right?

anyway, hopefully i'll not be needed on monday.

re how you judge a case.  You are allowed to ask the judge questions so that helps and you are very unlikely to get a fraud case and even if you do it's not likely to be that complicated.  Re the forensics my experiance of two lots of jury service was that there was not a lot involved (it's hardly CSI :)).  The one case where forensics did have an affect there were two experts but the defence one was obviously pretty much a last resort for them and his evidence was torn to pieces by the prosecution.  Don't forget it's up to the prosecution and defence to convince you, if there is reasonable doubt the defendant gets that benefit.  My experience of three cases on my two periods of Jury service was the judging wasn't that difficult.

You have to remember it's not like you see on the telly :)

> You have to remember it's not like you see on the telly :-)

yes i know, but there are factors that might be beyond the complete understanding of many, in fact the majority, of people and if you can't completely understand the ins and outs of something is it appropriate for you to then be making a decision that will dramatically effect someones life?

don;t get me wrong, we don;t have any better ideas and i like democratic undertones, but i do have doubts.

i'm an educated person but i doubt i could understand the ins and outs of a fraud case, or if two different forensics people said differing things how are we to know who is more likely to be right?

That is where the Barrister's role comes in to make you understand and if you don't understand then you ask for it to be explained :) Just a point, everybody is educated in some form or other. Higher levels of education doesn't determine whether you are more suitable to be a juror than somebody who hasn't perhaps gone for further education :-) 

> My experience of three cases on my two periods of Jury service was the judging wasn't that difficult.

That was my experience too.  I sat on two juries during my stint.  The first was a fairly micky-mouse 'handling stolen goods' case which collapsed after 2 days through lack of evidence. The second was a really difficult child abuse case - not an easy thing to sit and listen to for 3 weeks at all but the verdict was not difficult to reach as the legal teams and judge made it very clear as to how decisions should be reached and on what basis.

I wouldn't necessarily want to sit on a case like that again but I would have no qualms about attending for jury service again (although the Judge dismissed us for 10 years in recognition of the fact that the trial took much longer than anticipated and that it had been a particularly unpleasant case to hear).

> Higher levels of education doesn't determine whether you are more suitable to be a jurer than somebody who hasn't perhaps gone for further education

thats not what i was saying, i was making the point that there are complex issues and debates given in different forms of testimony and if it boils down to a scientific difference, which in some (though certainly not the majority) it can i wonder if a jury who have no knowledge of the subject can make an informed decision. e.g. if two forensic examiners both disagree on the validity of finger print evidence (which is far from an exact science) in jury trials it could essentially boil down to which scientist is a better public speaker or which lawyer has a more convincing manner, essentially a popularity contest rather than basing it on evidence.

jmo

> My experience of three cases on my two periods of Jury service was the judging wasn't that difficult.
>
>

Same here.  The Jury I sat on consisted of  people who thought they were well educated, people who were well educated, and those who were bigger criminals than the person in the dock!  :)  None of us had trouble understanding the case! :)

The English form of justice is for a person to be tried by "his peers".    This means the verdict is the decision of the ordinary members of the public - education does not come into it!   The jury should listen to the evidence as presented by the legal teams on both sides and then decide the verdict on the grounds of reasonable probability that the defendant is guilty or not guilty.   And that means that Joe Bloggs who skived off school at sixteen and has worked in snooker halls all his life is as fit as Mr Michael Martin MA who has been educated within an inch of his life and spends his time in the hallowed halls of academia to decide whether Mr I. M. Notathug is guilty or not guilty!

Margot

> And that means that Joe Bloggs who skived off school at sixteen and has worked in snooker halls all his life is as fit as Mr Michael Martin MA who has been educated within an inch of his life and spends his time in the hallowed halls of academia to decide whether Mr I. M. Notathug is guilty or not guilty!
>

perhaps i am not making myself clear- my point was that no matter the educational level of a jury member i am still not sure in some cases that they are still equipt to make a life changing decision.

if they are being given two conflicting sets of evidence by expert witnesses on both sides of the case on a subject that they are not familiar with how are they to know who to trust?

using your examples- if i went to 'Joe Bloggs school skivers snooker hall' to buy my other half a cue for a present and i said i would like some advise on whats the best one am i to belive Joe Bloggs or Joe bloggs pal who also works there? i know nothing about these things but if joes telling me cue 1 is rubbish am i to trust him or his apparently equally informed pal who says its great?

Say Mr Michael Martin MA wrote a journal article on a subject i've not studied and another contributer issues a rebuttal whos work am i to believe is most accurate?

without knowing the subject more intimately i think its very hard to make a decision and when we are potentially discussing imprisoning someone based on that decision i think that becomes problematic.

If misters Bloggs and Martin are both on Mr Nothings jury for say robbery and 1 expert fingerprint analyst says "oh his prints are definately all over it" and then the defence calls and equally qualified analyst who says "nope, its not clear at all if it was him" who are Bloggs and Martin to believe?

The burden of proof is upon the legal teams on both sides - Joe Bloggs and Mr Martin then decide which of their two positions is the most likely!  That is the basis upon which justice in England is dispensed.

Of course, you may be talking about being called to jury duty in Scotland, where there is the "cop-out" clause - as well as guilty and not guilty, there is the verdict of "not proven".

i agree, with my O.H and best friend both working in forensics i still struggle to understand what they are speaking about, however regardless of that the judge in the end will always lead a jury to a decision based on the facts he has heard, he does not obviously make them  but in his statement he will direct in one way or another in the decision should be made

i am in scotland so yes there is the third option.

> The burden of proof is upon the legal teams on both sides - Joe Bloggs and Mr Martin then decide which of their two positions is the most likely!

my worry with the system is that if there seems to be a balance of proving and disproving on either side how do you make that decision? in the end it just boils down to whos more convincing which is worrying in such a serious subject.

as i said before i don't disapprove of the jury system, we have no other way of doing things that has any transparency, i just have concerns about it.

> i agree, with my O.H and best friend both working in forensics i still struggle to understand what they are speaking about

:) and i bet they argue about how valid and definitive certain things are.

if so if the professionals disagree how are we meer mortals to manage?

> and i bet they argue about how valid and definitive certain things are.
>
>

yes, but only to a certain degree, ie new technology and ways of doing things.

So what would you propose in its stead?   The verdict in the hands of a panel of judges?   Whose experience of "everyday life" is not that which most of us experience?  

Our system of justice may not be perfect - but what is the alternative?   It has evolved over the last 1,200 years, since Anglo saxon times, and has been copied throughout the world.

Or would you prefer military type courts - or worse still - religious courts?

I've never been called to jury duty, but were I called, I should feel proud to think that I could be part of what has made us what we are.   Not that I'd expect it to be anything less than harrowing - but we should feel honoured to think that "little us" are the mainstay of our judicial system!

The jury is instructed by the judge to find a person 'Guilty' or 'Not Guilty' beyond reasonable doubt!  If there is an element of doubt whether due to some of the members of the Jury's lack of understanding of the evidence or not,  it has to be discussed further by the jury until there is a verdict reached.  It is here that the powers of persuasion by the majority of the jurors comes in!

a judge will consider what has been brought before a court and will instruct a jury as to how he feels it should go.
in a recent case that the o.h worked on which was high profile the judge basically instructed the jusry as to how they should decide.
ALSO if a judge has instructed or lead the jury to go toward a certain decision and it comes back the opposite decision he then has the power to order a retrial.

lokis mum i actually already answered your questions here in a couple of other posts, in fact in my last i said

>>as i said before i don't disapprove of the jury system, we have no other way of doing things that has any transparency, i just have concerns about it.

so no, i would not change it to any of the systems you suggest and the implication that i might is in contrast to what i've already said.

and while its not in my view an honour, after all anyone on the electoral roll can be picked its not like they asked me as an honour, i consider it to be the cost of living in a free society and its not one i have a problem paying because it protects our own freedoms.

Maybe I didn't phrase that last bit as well as I might have done.   What I should have said is that, were I called upon for jury duty, I would consider it a priviledge and be thankful for the times in which we live - it is only within my lifetime that women have been routinely called to be members of a jury.   

> What I should have said is that, were I called upon for jury duty, I would consider it a priviledge and be thankful for the times in which we live - it is only within my lifetime that women have been routinely called to be members of a jury.   

i agree, while i have concerns i still appreciate the strengths of the system that we have now :)

ETA> i'm back in on monday for it.

I have to agree...people generally don't know how exact finger print recognition is! Apart from DNA it has been an invaluable tool in the fight against crime! Problems sometimes, yes, but mainly due to human error!

Anyone who thinks they're better 'educated' than anyone else to be able to make a considered opinion, that may be below someone elses understanding, is, frankly misguided! I have given lots of evidence in the course of my career(s) even a black and white case can end up muddy! Everything is most definately explained beyond doubt by using 'expert witnesses'(like myself) I certainly don't consider Jury duty a waste of time, for some poor person it can be the only chance of Justice they get! (whichever end of the bench they're on!)

Given the standard of English we see on here it might even be said that there are a lot of 'UN'educated people around! ;-)

Replying in general and going back to my own experience, we, the jury returned to the court to seek the judges advice on 3 occasions but they can only answer if the point was raised during the case and we were told that if a point was not clear we should have passed a message to the usher and he in turn would have asked the judge to clarify the point for us, but we were not told that before or during the evidence so when we came to discuss the evidence that was given there were, well as far as I was concerned, huge gaps and I personally could not say the chap was guilty beyond doubt although my gut feeling was that he was. As far as I was concerned I was not prepared to convict on gut feeling.

Think the judge realised that the barristers had not made sure that enough information was bought out in court and I feel the judge should have pushed them harder but there you are water under the bridge ages ago and I would think forgotten by all except me who still has nightmares about it.

> Think the judge realised that the barristers had not made sure that enough information was bought out in court and I feel the judge should have pushed them harder but there you are water under the bridge ages ago and I would think forgotten by all except me who still has nightmares about it.

but it is not the judge's job to push the barristers.  The judge is there to ensure that the court acts sccording to the laws etc laid down and that no one over steps them, they also give advice and rules on points of law that may not be clear.  The judge is not there to "judge" the defendant he is there to make sure the trial is just and fair. 

The judge cannot give advice on the guilt or otherwise of the defendant so they cannot give advice to the jury except on points of law, during the case they can ask questions on behalf of the jury but that has to be during the case as the defence and prosecution must have the opportunity to reply to the question.

There are a number of problems with our legal system and I suspect that more guilty people are found innocent than innocent found guilty but personally I think that it is the best system that can be devised given all the limitations.

The judge is there to clarify any point bought up or out by the barristers, this one did not and left us with a load of unanswered questions that could have been answered if we had known to ask the steward to ask the judge to find out for us during the trial but we did not know that till after.

If I remember correctly in this case the couple who said they were attacked were sitting in a car park on a wall, no one asked why they were there or what they had come for, well no one asked till it was to late to get an answer.

The judge isn't there to clarify points bought up by the barristers unless they involve points of law or unless the jury ask about something.  If the jury ask a question the judge can ask a witness or defendant that question if he feels it clarifies a point.  He can't say anything to the jury that may influence their decision he has to stick to the facts as put before the court.

I agree about the questions I have sat on three juries and on two of them we were told we could ask questions but on the third no one said anything about it, it was only because a couple of us had previous experiance that we knew we could ask questions.  It would help if juries were properly briefed at the beginning of each trial.

Re the case with the couple on the wall.  The judge wouldn't ask the question it is up to the barristers or the jury if they don't  no matter what the judge feels about it they can't ask the question - they are there to ensure that the trial is fair and according to the law not to ask questions of witnesses.

I was chosen for Jury Service about 15 years ago for a fraud case.  It was excruciatingly boring to sit through and only lasted 6 weeks with no conviction.  The case was prosecuted by CPS who knew they had not enough evidence but decided to 'risk it' anyway (we met them after the trial).  The accused was patently guilty but there was not enough evidence to convict 'without a doubt'.  So it was a hung jury and was, I hope re-tried.  It was 6 weeks of my life I will never get back again!