You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
After 2 years of evidence! How on earth did they pick the jury, can't imagine many employers being happy with someone taking 2 years off for jury service? And how are they compensated for that time, i.e. could you have a significant dent in your earnings as a result of it?
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35979802 ]Link[/url]
https://www.gov.uk/jury-service/taking-time-off-work
You get unpaid time off from work, then claim back your earnings from the court.
I presume one of the criteria for getting off jury service is it would put undue hardship on your employer or company if you genuinely are irreplaceable.
Actually looks like very fair compensation. Taking 2 years out must have an impact on people's careers though - skills could easily become out of date if they're very technical. Would imagine/hope that would also be a reason for being excused though.
Looks bloody awful compensation.
If you were on a 12month case the most you'd be able to claim would be 200 ish x £136ish = 27k.
And with all the short days and legal arguments in camera probably a fair bit less. Anything more than a week or two and I'd have to throw the mother of all sickies.
96 people lost their lives. Do you not think their their families deserve justice, regardless of the financial cost?
Do you not think their their families deserve justice, regardless of the financial cost?
Not really fair for the financial cost to be borne by a few randomly-selected members of the public, though.
96 people lost their lives. Do you not think their their families deserve justice, regardless of the financial cost?
Of course - I'm just curious about how being selected for such a jury would impact the jurors. Aside from having to listen to all the awful details of it for 2 years. Wonder if they get offered counselling as well after particularly bad cases?
clodhopper - Member
96 people lost their lives. Do you not think their their families deserve justice, regardless of the financial cost?
Absolutely, but that cost should be borne by the state. I'd not be in a position to do 2 years at those rates.
96 people lost their lives. Do you not think their their families deserve justice, regardless of the financial cost?
Of course, but not at financial cost of randomly selected punters.
Edit: Beaten to it.
But this is how our justice system works; we can all, as members of society, be called upon to do our civic duty and be part of our judicial process. It's something that helps make justice fairer and more democratic. Without such a system, we'd need to rely on professional jurors,and I for one really wouldn't want to see that.
Would you think it was fair for the taxpayer to be burdened with the cost of paying everyone who sits on jury service the equivalent of their normal wages/salary? How would that work for part-time workers, jobseekers, freelancers etc?
"Anything more than a week or two and I'd have to throw the mother of all sickies."
You'd consider your own gain above justice?
Would there be other compensation/support in cases like this? I would imagine 2 years listening to such harrowing reports on each of these deaths would leave you a different person than at the start of the process.
Not taxable so that's in the region of £80k
eh?
£27k take home equates to £80k gross? I don't think so. No where near it. More like £40k gross.
But if you're getting paid to do something for 2 years, doesn't that effectively make that your job - i.e. you are a professional juror for 2 years?
Would you think it was fair for the taxpayer to be burdened with the cost of paying everyone who sits on jury service the equivalent of their normal wages/salary? How would that work for part-time workers, jobseekers, freelancers etc?
Would you think it was fair for people to lose their house and struggle to feed their family because the taxpayer wasn't paying people enough to keep up with their normal monthly outgoings while doing their duty for the justice system?
eh?£27k take home equates to £80k gross? I don't think so. No where near it.
It's not, fat calculator fingers on the phone!
No way would I get two years off work, I'd be laid off after 3 months and come back unemployed, 2 years out of date skills wise, having taken an enormous pay cut!
Was gonna say, you need to get your tax code sorted out 🙂
"Would you think it was fair for people to lose their house and struggle to feed their family because the taxpayer wasn't paying people enough to keep up with their normal monthly outgoings while doing their duty for the justice system?"
Where do you set a limit? What if a premier league footballer for example, on £100,000+ a week has to do jury service? What if someone has a massive mortgage on a £2 million+ home? I think the amount of recompense has to be set at a fair limit regarding everyone, not just the individual. How much is 'enough'?
[b]Problems with your employer[/b]
You can complain to an employment tribunal if you’re unreasonably refused time off for jury service.If you’re sacked because you do jury service you may be able to claim unfair dismissal. However, if your employer asks you to delay jury service and you refuse, you may not be able to claim unfair dismissal.
clodhopper - MemberYou'd consider your own gain above justice?
I don't think anyone is talking about making a gain. But neither should anyone be effectively penalised for sitting on hearings. If I was put in the position of taking a cut in income for 2 years that effectively meant I couldn't afford my mortgage payment or racked up a heap of debt then I'm sure would impact on my ability to concentrate (impartially!) on the trial!
clodhopper - Member
But this is how our justice system works; we can all, as members of society, be called upon to do our civic duty and be part of our judicial process.
Thats not strictly true.. there are exclusions and viable reason for not doing service. You do have a little say in the call up whether you can commit or not and whether you are reliable.
Anyway, back to the case. 2 years is a very long time, the jury wouldn't sit everyday in court for that amount of time. They'd be called up when listening to evidence and such, of course there would be conflicting holiday bookings, legal representation clashes and such to consider. So the jury wouldn't be there day in/day out.
I expect the jury is very tired and quite possibly sanitised to the actual facts by now, it all becoming a normal part of their day. I do wonder how they will adopt back into "work" and whether anyone suffers as a consequence of the time in jury service.
Where do you set a limit? What if a premier league footballer for example, on £100,000+ a week has to do jury service?
Well in that example, 2 years sat on a chair would effectively end his career due to lack of fitness / skill / games etc.
Would you think it was fair for the taxpayer to be burdened with the cost of paying everyone who sits on jury service the equivalent of their normal wages/salary?
Yes, I think it's entirely fair and there is **** all chance I'd do it for that money. If forced, you just become a terrorist (not literal) and get hoofed out by the others.
You get to say at the start of you service if a long case will unduly inconvenience you.
They have more than enough people willing to do it.
You can complain to an employment tribunal if you’re unreasonably refused time off for jury service.
Fat lot of good that would do you in practice.
It is indeed one problem with our justice system, there are many people who would not be able or willing to take 2 years out. As such the jury is not really representative. I was called for service once for a 3 month case, they asked how many of us (large group maybe 100) would be unable to do it and the majority said so and where excused.
Would you think it was fair for the taxpayer to be burdened with the cost of paying everyone who sits on jury service the equivalent of their normal wages/salary?
Yes, I think it's entirely fair
+1
Mainly because otherwise you'd be starting the trial with very pissed off jurors worried about debt, which is hardly what you want for a fair trial.
It is indeed one problem with our justice system, there are many people who would not be able or willing to take 2 yarst out.
I thought they went for all judge based jury in complex long cases as it was unreasonable to expect a random lay person to a) suffer that long and b) remember all the details etc.
Where do you set a limit? What if a premier league footballer for example, on £100,000+ a week has to do jury service? What if someone has a massive mortgage on a £2 million+ home? I think the amount of recompense has to be set at a fair limit regarding everyone, not just the individual. How much is 'enough'?
So it's ok to have people lose their homes if they happen to be able to afford an expensive one in the first place then?
You're examples are pretty extreme. The salary they pay up to is c.35k a year, that would leave a lot of people in a difficult situation financially. I know I'd certainly struggle with mortgage payments with that cut, and my home is worth a significant amount less than £2m.
A typical jury service lasts 10 working days and a juror could end up sitting on more than one case.
You can claim for loss of earnings, along with travel and food expenses and other items such as childcare costs.
This must be made after your jury service is over – and no later than three months after completion.
😯
Presumably in a 2 year case they wouldn't leave you with no income for 2 years before giving you anything back???
Does make you wonder how it takes 2 years, couldn't they have got it down to say 6 months?
"So it's ok to have people lose their homes if they happen to be able to afford an expensive one in the first place then?"
They'd be able to sell that property and buy one within their means. They wouldn't be losing their home. Fair? maybe the individual wouldn't think so, but I think the system by and large is a pretty good one, and serves greater society very well indeed.
"It is indeed one problem with our justice system, there are many people who would not be able or willing to take 2 years out."
This is an exceptional case (the longest of it's kind in British legal history. I imagine the vast majority of cases are relatively much shorter. There doesn't appear to be any seriously documented evidence that our current system is socially damaging or deemed particularly unfair, so I'd consider the needs of greater society to take precedent over the concerns of a minority of individuals any day, in the pursuit of justice.
Personally, I think the financial cost potentially (we don't actually know) endured by a very tiny number of people in this case, is far outweighed by the cost borne by those who lost their loved ones at Hillsborough. A perfectly acceptable price to pay, in my opinion.
[quote=clodhopper said]regardless of the financial cost?
To the state yes, expecting the jury members to take the financial hit though is a different matter.
They'd be able to sell that property and buy one within their means. They wouldn't be losing their home. Fair?
No, not by any stretch of the imagination. It'd be less onerous to take the penalty for not serving.
**** that. The Uk justice system should not have to rely on the charity of citizens. It's unfair to ask (to suggest that someone sell their home is frankly ludicrous in the very least) and could result in jurors wanting to reach a verdict as quickly as possible and possibly be fairly unconcerned at how they get to it. It might be an acceptable price to you, but (as demonstrated) it is not to many others.
Downgrading my family home so that a citizen might get justice for the act of another citizen? Not a chance in hell. If the state wants a trial, the state should damn well pay for a trial.
£27k? Take home?
Given the MoJ EO jobs I was looking at, they are clearly on the wrong side of the fence.
They'd be able to sell that property and buy one within their means. They wouldn't be losing their home. Fair?
Not by a long shot.
You're either trolling, or our views on this are so far apart we're on a different planet, either way I suspect we aren't going to every come close to seeing eye to eye on this!
It's a problem - you want impartial jurors so people are judged fairly, but jurors won't be impartial if they are worried about their finances and just want it to be over.
I haven't been called for many years - I presume I'm on a list because I explained that I could not leave my business for any length of time or hire a replacement. I do feel a little guilty about that, but also I don't think asking me to lose my livelihood is a reasonable thing to ask - and it'd certainly make me unlikely to give the case my full and impartial attention no matter how much I tried.
Maths is not my strong point but £228 per day works out at a lot more than £27k per year.
I have been a juror and found the process fascinating! Thankfully it was a long time ago so the compensation matched my income! I would struggle to do 2 years with mortgage and 2 children!
I am quite proud I got the chance to fulfill my civic duty, even though the case was deeply unpleasant:-(
Is there a reason it has taken this long? Dragged out? Any ulterior motives at play; why should it be a two year case?
96 victims, 100s of witnesses, 1000s of documents and potentially a cover up that extends to the most senior of police officers and levels of government...thats probably why.
27k is for a 12month stint crankboy, higher rate for a longer trial. I do hope you pay more attention when you're in court! 🙂
And clodhopper is obviously a troll. Or Jeremy Corbyn.
BTW I've not personally had the opportunity to put a price on my social conscience since although I've remarkably made it to the epic age of 40, I've never been asked to do jury service.
Me neither...I'd thought being an Irish citizen, I was ineligible...until my sister got called. I shit the day I get asked. No bloody way I'm doing it.
Me neither at 45!
clodhopper - i do hope you are trolling that's a fairly outrageous statement to make. Just because some people have more money than others (generally because they either work harder, worked harder at school, or are born into it), does not make it right that they should loose out because of jury service. As for living in "their means" they were until they were "called-up" through not fsult of ther own (remember that next time you feel hard done by). I'd be telling them to swing for it..
I've been called up once, about 15 years ago. Two cases, both went daaaaaarn.
i do hope you are trolling
Why do you hope he is trolling ? he is allowed to have an opinion, the same as jurors are allowed to disagree thats how justice works,
watch this: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050083/
They'd be able to sell that property and buy one within their means. They wouldn't be losing their home. Fair? maybe the individual wouldn't think so, but I think the system by and large is a pretty good one, and serves greater society very well indeed.
Says a man who I'm willing to bet earns well less than he'd get doing jury service..
On a side note what exactly will be the outcome of this trial. Noone will go to jail, people will be named and shamed (and right they should be) and appologies issued....other than that?
cheeky, i've just deleted what i was going to write after a deep breath. However there are times when opinions cross a divide that are morally questionable. Whilst the statement is not as adverse as opinions in say sex, race, equality etc, the parallels of what the statement allude to are; that those who have strived (sp) to better themselves should be treated unfairly. don't get me wrong i think footballers are overpaid, but that's not the point, the premise is though.
No-one should have to be at a disadvantage due to jury service just because they have been otherwise [monetarily] successful in life.
But this is how our justice system works; we can all, as members of society, be called upon to do our civic duty and be part of our judicial process. It's something that helps make justice fairer and more democratic. Without such a system, we'd need to rely on professional jurors,and I for one really wouldn't want to see that.
Why not, half of the members of public have an IQ below 100.
Trial by Jury is an old anachronism and should be done away with.
So, let me get this straight. If I am ever in court for a long and drawn out complicated thing the most likely scenario is that I will be tried by a jury of my peers, who according to STW are likely to be independently wealthy, shirkers or thick as a whale omelette, or possibly all three, and I certainly won't expect any premiership footballers to decide my fate? Oh great. Another good reason to steer clear of criminality, were any needed.
Another good reason to steer clear of criminality, were any needed.
To be fair, if you were a successful criminal you'd never need see the inside of a court...
Most of you lot would be able to get out of Jury Duty on account of being nuts anyway.
Have you ever been called Tom?
Nope, personally hope that I don't have to either. Why? Not sure I'd ever even find out if I had actually been called either, as I tend to move around a lot doing contracting work - I'm borderline having no fixed abode.
I don't claim to be correct but £228 × 5 days a week × 46 working weeks a year is about £52 k per year and your can still work in your job on the days / weeks the court is not sitting with a jury . if there is a Max total pay I missed it in the link which only apeared to give a Max day rate of £228.
On top of that you get £12 per day for food and travel expenses it is not that bad a gig.
I've sat in on a few civil cases, but I'd love to be on the jury of a brief criminal case. Just not a long one that would take financial piss.
**** that. The Uk justice system should not have to rely on the charity of citizens. It's unfair to ask (to suggest that someone sell their home is frankly ludicrous in the very least) and could result in jurors wanting to reach a verdict as quickly as possible and possibly be fairly unconcerned at how they get to it. It might be an acceptable price to you, but (as demonstrated) it is not to many others.Downgrading my family home so that a citizen might get justice for the act of another citizen? Not a chance in hell. If the state wants a trial, the state should damn well pay for a trial.
+1 The idea that the state could do that, presses all of the closeted libertarian buttons in me.
Crankboy, £228 rate only kicks in after the first year during which the day rate is only £130. The 27k was off a 1 yr trial.
I bet the judges chews you right up 😉
Price of everything.
Value of nothing.
As usual.
Tell me, what is the value of potentially having a bunch of Daily Mail/Sun reading half-wits acting as jurors?
I'd rather be put on trial in Soviet Russia than face that.
Sadly for whatever reason failure of state bodies, negligence of staff at hte game, failures of the ambulance service etc led to the deaths of 96 football supporters, and due to the hard work put in by the families to get a formal inquiry into the event, all some of you can complain about is how out of pocket youd be.
96 of those people left families, children , workmates and freinds, with just memories, and in some cases financial ruin due to no wage earner in the family, some have even died without knowing the results of this inquiry or what its effect is going to have on football and other spectator sports, and to find out what is going to happen if anything to those who failed in their duty of care.
I'm merely sick of smug, selfish, ingrates who whinge and whine everytime someone asks them to contribute to what passes for society.
No-one should have to be at a disadvantage due to jury service just because they have been otherwise [monetarily] successful in life.
Sui, you have missed my point completely, my point was that Clodhpper was allowed to have an opinion at odds with yours or anyone else and that your comment (I do hope you are trolling) does have a certain paternal/authoritarian ring to it, dont you think ?
FWIW I agree with you, Jurors ought to be reimbursed commensurate with their lost earnings, what price justice 😉
Stoner i am regularly chewed up but right now half way through a holiday and halfway through a bottle of wine I can live with it.. We are talking about the outlying cases though the vast majority are dealt with within the two weeks call , many employers accommodate staff jury service . The loss of wage compensation for any case over 40 weeks which is the subject of the thread, seems to cover well over the average wage .
Rusty, how about you take a 20,30,50,75% pay cut for a couple of years for the greater good and then stride back into the thread to tell us all just how much that warm glow of righteousness you will have had paid your bills and kept your family.
Virtue signal posting of the highest order.
CB, I think most in here whether employed, self employed, or just holy and righteous could take a 10 day stint. But as you say, it's the outliers that could financially cripple a household. If they really are few and far between then surely the system should recognise the exception of the circumstances and make sure no one loses out to such a great extent.
The loss of wage compensation for any case over 40 weeks which is the subject of the thread, seems to cover well over the average wage .
Would it cover yours?
I'd be quite happy to pay more tax to compensate those affected, even though they earn considerably more than me.
Would you?
Would it cover mine ? Yes easily .. Plus £12 a day food is way more than my spend.
But that makes it easy for me to be in favour of jury service.
Can't you take out insurance to cover this anyway?
I* pay all the tax asked of me like anyone else who doesn't have an offshore shell holding company. If I were asked to chip in another 0.001% so freelancers/self-employed don't get shagged on jury service, I'd be happy to.
* actually the wife does. She's the accountant in the team, and just as socially minded as you are. I should probably rent her out to HMRC and I reckon they'd see their recovery rates soar given she's such a stickler.
You never know when you're going to need a good jury.
Especially when you let your wife organise your tax returns.
🙂
[img] 
[/img]
If crankboys defending me I'll probably need all the help I can get from the jury 😉
I've heard he has a criminal practice that takes up most of his time.
I have just done it. I resented the fact I didn't get paid ( I work for a German company - in Germany you get reimbursed for all your earning after tax if you are in a jury).
But the case was harrowing and interesting. The jury were are real class / demographic mix ... and all were a joy to work with. I am glad I did it.
But I have lost nights sleep during the trial and after it ...
"So it's ok to have people lose their homes if they happen to be able to afford an expensive one in the first place then?"
They'd be able to sell that property and buy one within their means. They wouldn't be losing their home. Fair? maybe the individual wouldn't think so, but I think the system by and large is a pretty good one, and serves greater society very well indeed.
Quality trolling...I hope.
I'm a one man band business - I'd be stuffed if called up for a long time.
I wouldn't mind being called so much if the rule is that the jurors make exactly the same per day as the lawyers in front of them 🙂
Should get rid of juries all together anyway.
A pool of trained assessors. Some technical, chosen based on case particulars, with advisors on points of law.
Juries are fab they actually consider the issues. Paid assessors consider their jobs and their guidelines and inherent biases . Given the usual issue for a jury is who do you believe? and what do you think is right ? How do you train an assessor to preform that function ? How do you get the public to trust that assessor and his training ?
Look how much our few radical coronors stand out look how even with coronors courts we resort to juries for significant cases. The " Diplock" courts in Northern Ireland have not attracted much public trust.