[Closed] Jury service

What address do they have you registered at?
Ring them ... they are very helpful

You lucky sod. I'd love to get picked for jury service.

Well the letter made its way to my home - in Hampshire.

There's a helpful map of Leeds though.

I'm just wondering if they are technically allowed to do this?

You lucky sod. I'd love to get picked for jury service.

Me too. Is this weird?

The idea of sitting on a jury really interests me. I got called once, but didn't yet have a British passport, so had to decline.

I very much doubt that 250 miles would be considered a reasonable distance - especially so when the crown will have to reimburse you for out of pocket expenses.

Of course if you made the effort to just rock up on the first day and then disclosed this fact just as you were being sworn in, I'm pretty certain that any judge *would dismiss you, with an apology.... and of course you will have discharged your responsibility..

*Possibly.

Would gladly let you take my place!

Bregante that's genius (if slightly risky?)

Would gladly let you take my place!

Awaits headline in the Yorkshire Post

Ha ha

Think I'm just gonna write and ask to be excused on the basis it's a 4hour commute

It is supposed to be as close as possible to where you live.

There is a number to call on the .gov website

0300 456 1024

Or email

jurysummoning@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk

I very much doubt that 250 miles would be considered a reasonable distance

When I was doing Jury service one of my fellow jurors was doing it for the 6th or 7th time and for one of his stints he was doing the service in Glasgow but had to travel from Germany.

Having moaned about how often he'd had to do it our case wound up on a weds morning and there was another raffle (of us plus all the people summoned earlier in the week who hadn't been picked for trials) for jurors to sit on another case that was starting and he got picked again.

[i]I'd love to get picked for jury service.[/i]

I did jury service at the beginning of the month.

It was a domestic violence plus rape case.

Little physical evidence beyond patterns of behaviour, hearsay etc.

Two individuals each with their own sad tale to tell.

No real hope of 'making things better' with a verdict either way. The accused would end up with a long sentence and being on the sex offenders register, the victim had already suffered a lot during the period of time she was being abused and whilst a 'guilty' would have been a victory of sorts the damage had largely been done.

It was one of the most difficult 10 days of my life.

Hearing a lot of distressing, detailed, evidence and then spending more than 9 hours over 3 days in a jury room and laying awake thinking about it at night.

I was quite looking forward to it beforehand.

I'd *really* rather not do it again.

Still think about the bloke spending at least 4 years in prison as a result of my decision during his trial (yes, I know it's not solely my decision and he chose to commit the crime but still).

I did it a while ago, managed to get out of the first case I got called for because the judge asked if we knew anyone in the court - my neighbour was sat there as part of the prosecution team, glad too as the case went on for 6 months. I then got called to another case a day later which only lasted a few days but it was a really horrible assault, and as above there were no winners in it and I haven't got any desire to be called again.

Did it last summer.

The cases were grim as per wwaswas comment above. The first was pretty much one word against another. The details of the evidence was incredibly distressing.

The second was so crazy I couldn't believe the Police and CPS even thought there was a case.

The legal staff were incredibly pleasant and certainly made you feel your time on a jury was appreciated by the system.

The admin side was utterly appalling. Person running the jurors office was an officious little troll with a clipboard and a bad attitude. I can quite imagine a screw up from the admin side of things.

It was an experience, not one I fancy doing again.

I have mates who have done it who've had to deal with people coming out with the "he just looks guilty"/"he reminds of someone I know who was a ne'er do well"/"he must have done it- there's no smoke without fire" etc.

Don't reckon I'm gonna enjoy dealing with that.

Did it a couple of years ago at Winchester CC. Interesting experience and ended up as foreman of the jury. Suggest taking a good book with you as there is a lot of waiting around while points of law are discussed.
Was your original summons also Leesds? They told us the jury pool could get loaned out to other courts but only within the same circuit (Salisbury and Southampton I think).
As above ring them, everyone very pleasant and helpful. Got paid bike mileage as well so Leeds could net you a good profit

No originally Winchester, which is 750 yards from my house.

Liking the bike mileage idea though.

I'll call tomorrow and see that the craic is.

I was the foreman of a jury. Petty theft of a rug, the accused's story collapsed when her mother gave evidence. Accused was guilty, never found out the sentence as I think that she had been convicted of other crimes. Judge not happy as the cost of the trial was counted in thousands and the stolen rug was less than £50

As a side note - all the people who ended up as foremen of you're jury - was it because there was some sort of nomination and vote? Or did you break the awkward silence by say - "well I suppose we should elect a foreman" and everyone else saying "congratulations" 🙂

My mum did it a while ago and she told me the court staff can be awkward.

They all got a lunch allowance and one lad on the jury went about 76p over his allowance and they came and looked for him to get the money. They didn't even wait till the end of the day.

On mums case were a couple of really famous people, one being a TV presenter 😯

Believe it or not - I was the youngest

Im exempt and im very glad for it. It must be sometimes simply horrifying.

I just ignored it last time I got the letter. was the 3rd time, tbh they can piss off.

I've done it twice now.

First time, waiting around 2 days to win the raffle, didn't get picked, got sent home.

Second time, after 1.5 days of waiting around, had a sexual assault case in which all of the evidence seemed to suggest the woman and her mates had made it all up. Not helped by the prosecutor barrister not being able to work the CCTV DVD play (as if he hadn't even watched it).

Didn't take us long to acquit. That was Thursday afternoon and they sent us home not to return the following week.

Neither was 250 miles away though!

Been there, done it. Boring. (Wasn't working at the time so no issues)

Start next Monday, not really looking forward to it, pain in the arse to get to with no car available, 35 miles away by bus and train, have to set off at 730 to get there on time. Hope to get stood down.

Just go in with a t-shirt on that says "racist"

Also, don't do what I advise - as it's probably illegal, immoral or unsound.

MacCruiskeen - I was foreman, no one else was prepared to stand up at the end and announce the verdict. If I'd said no I think we'd have had to draw straws.

We were offered choice to return to court for sentencing. About 2/3rds of the Jury did.

I found it helped, despite the convicted mans family being there. The judge summed up in about 10 sentences why I'd found him guilty. The CPS had failed to collect a victim impact statement which I think was a shame but none of her family were there from what I saw.

Like some others I'd been looking forward to doing it all my life but the reality was a big disappointment. When eventually I got picked, at the start of week two, it was an accusal of improper touching by a neighbour against the complainant's child. The accused was a family friend and a bit of a scallywag who lived a DSS lifestyle in Blackpool and I had a strong feeling the parents of the wronged child were embarrassed that the case had gone as far as it had; it felt like a scalp for the Police and the CPS. Of the jury, three of us were not convinced at all by the evidence, which was a mess. We argued about the case for all of the Thursday afternoon and I had a sleepless night going over it all in my mind. By Friday morning we three disagreers had succeeded in convincing ourselves that the accused was guilty, faced with the prospect of re-convening on Monday morning for more tedious discussion. The judge must have sensed our doubt because in summing up he said: "Don't worry, he won't go to prison, I'm going to commission all kinds of psychological and social reports then decide in a few months what to do."

My mate was foreman, said it made him lose all faith in jury decisions. It seemed whenever he raised a point of view, everyone agreed with him, so it effectively became his decision guilty/not as the rest didn't seem to be able to think for themselves. In considering verdict, a couple of the folks just said they'd go with whatever as long as it meant they could get a result and get away early.

A sure-fire way of avoiding almost all of jury service:

- Don't respond to the first summons
- Don't respond to the second one either, even though it threatens consequences
- About 1 week before you're due to attend, send your response
- Turn up on day 1 and your name won't be on any of their lists, so you won't be called
- They'll note you down as having attended, and if you submit your expenses for the day this also acts as your proof of attendance.
- After day 1 they send you home saying call this number every day to see if we need you. As you don't appear on any of their lists, they won't.

Worked for me, morally vacant for sure, but I avoided a very nasty pikey murder as a result.

My mate was foreman, said it made him lose all faith in jury decisions.

We were lucky in that, we had a couple of people on the first panel that just didn't get what only considering the presented evidence meant.

We spent hours because one bloke "felt" the defendant was guilty because drugs were mentioned and druggies are always guilty and one of the women on the panel kept suggesting that in such cases they're always guilty, because men do these things.

Had to be a unanimous verdict so spent ages asking where the evidence for the opinions was and after half a day it finally got through what evidence means.

Certainly made me realise that not all people are capable of objective thought, even the supposedly intelligent - the bloke who didn't get evidence was supposed to be a GP 🙂

As mentioned a few times by other posters Jury service is an interesting experience but you will lose all faith in trial by Jury. Your fellow jury members will either go along with the flow to get out as soon as possible or make a decision as soon as they see the defendant and then have selective hearing when it comes to the rest of the evidence.
The case I sat certainly wasn't clear cut and I was the only one prepared to think it through and not immediately jump to a guilty verdict based on the fact the defendant was already in prison!

Yes phone them up, or email them or whatever.
The 'computer' has probably made a mistake.
They pay expenses but the reimbursement is usually capped.
Obviously travelling 500miles a day would be a bit nuts they would need to confirm what they would pay for your overnight accommodation for the two weeks (quite often released early but practically you would need to book the accomodation in advance).

Of course if you made the effort to just rock up on the first day and then disclosed this fact just as you were being sworn in, I'm pretty certain that any judge *would dismiss you, with an apology.... and of course you will have discharged your responsibility..

*Possibly.

We were lucky in that, we had a couple of people on the first panel that just didn't get what only considering the presented evidence meant.

I'd say all but 3 of the people on my jury couldn't really tell the difference between 'Evidence' and a leading question. In fact they hadn't realised that the Defence hadn't presented any evidence [i]at all[/i]. They'd just asked questions that were statements with the words ".... isn't it?" at the end to which the witnesses would always answer 'no'.

But a shambolic prosecution from a guy presented the case as if he'd just fallen out of bed and slick spiv defense meant the jurors remembered the questions more than the answers.

At the risk of being a grumpy sod, may I just remind contributors to this thread that discussion of jury deliberations should not take place, even after the trial has ended, at the risk of being found in contempt of court:

https://www.gov.uk/jury-service/discussing-the-trial

I did it about six years ago. Three and a half weeks evidence and two and a half days of deliberation. Quite opposite to the other comments on here it was a really positive and interesting experience. Everyone took it seriously, we went through every piece of evidence for both prosecution and defense, weighed up their importance and came to a unanimous not guilty verdict. We were praised by the judge for our studious approach to the deliberation (purely based on the time that we took, none of the judges or staff have access to the deliberation room). Almost everyone took it very seriously, the less serious just kept quiet for the most part. No one made any "he looks a bit shifty" type comments. I'd like to think that if I were in the dock then people would take jury service that seriously; it's one of the most important institutions in the free world.

By Friday morning we three disagreers had succeeded in convincing ourselves that the accused was guilty, faced with the prospect of re-convening on Monday morning for more tedious discussion.

Great, so you convinced yourself because you didn't want to reconvene and there was reasonable doubt in regards to the evidence.

Jury's need to be replaced with a pool of professional jurors.

Jury's need to be replaced with a pool of professional jurors.

I've done it twice so far (and I reckon I've got about another 30 years or so to be called up again)

Both times woefully disappointing. The whole process is a waste of time and money.

If I was a criminal I'd definitely want to go to a crown court, not a magistrates court. People CANNOT differentiate between the juror's role of making an assessment based on evidence, and a judge's role of sentencing. Jurors says 'he didn't mean it', or 'he's only young'. It's evidence. You judge on that.

Really disappointed in the whole thing

curto have you solved your issue leeds is my local court so i am more than happy to check stuff out for you if you wish , as has been said jurors should be drawn from the courts local area , if an outside jury were needed they normally would shift the trial to another court center not ship in the jury.
On the other hand we have some very entertaining judges in leeds so it may be worth the trip.

In answer to a question asked earlier about how people end up being foreman. In my case it was because no-one else was prepared to do the job and I wanted to get home that week! By that point in the trial we all had a pretty good idea of the other jurors and if they could lead the deliberations. In our case everyone took their duties seriously and we did consider the evidence, to the extent that we spotted an error than none of the 3 defense barristers had found.
Some of the other cases going on at the same time had a right mixture of characters on their jury. I came away with the impression that the longer the case was likely to take the worse/least representative the jury was. The best people to be on a jury were also the ones who could think of a valid reason why they couldn't sit for more than the normal 2 weeks.

That basically makes it 'Trial by Judge'.

How? It would be trial by lawyer, a number of them, randomly selected so as to reduce the chance of corruption, from a pool large enough so as to be reasonably representative.

If I was a criminal I'd definitely want to go to a crown court, not a magistrates court.

I'm not sure that is always the case - my brother was let off something like five counts of assault by going to magistrates as opposed to crown.

[i]It would be trial by lawyer, a number of them[/i]

judges are lawyers, they've just specialised a bit.

Yeah, they're a little bit further up the food chain - so actual judges could bias the process a little (smaller recruitment pool) and cost more, no?

Jury's need to be replaced with a pool of professional jurors.

The right to have guilt judged by your peers is pretty important across most of the world.

Start paying jurors and you lose that trial by peers which is pretty much a bad thing. People who are paid are people who have been or can be bought.

As difficult as it was at times, the importance of the public giving up their time to serve was made clear and was thanked several times by judges and legal staff while I attended.

I can't say I found the experience wonderful, not every juror quite got it but it's a duty just as important as voting.

Elections are never really understood by most but no-one suggests a paid electorate is a good thing.

The right to have guilt judged by your peers is pretty important across most of the world.

Start paying jurors and you lose that trial by peers which is pretty much a bad thing. People who are paid are people who have been or can be bought.

As difficult as it was at times, the importance of the public giving up their time to serve was made clear and was thanked several times by judges and legal staff while I attended.

I can't say I found the experience wonderful, not every juror quite got it but it's a duty just as important as voting.

Elections are never really understood by most but no-one suggests a paid electorate is a good thing.

Lets have a volounteer CPS, intelligence services, police and political class then - if you can't counter corruption with anything other than not paying people for a service.

[quote=allan23 ]Elections are never really understood by most but no-one suggests a paid electorate is a good thing.

I think you may have come up with an improvement nobody thought of after the Brexit vote there.

The jury brings together people with a wide variety of experiences in life, work and sometimes technology, this will be lost if you rely on a pool of pain legal experts more so as tuition fees and student debt close off the legal profession to those from a poorer background. It's trial by peers the vast majority of the legal profession I have dealt with have been far removed from the man in the street by both education and income , I have seen juries up close from both the inside and the outside I haven't seen any grossly perverse verdicts so far

The right to have guilt judged by your peers is pretty important across most of the world.

Jury trials are not ubiquitous across the world, and even in England and Wales not all offences have the option for Jury trial, and in Scotland the crown decide the form of trial. In France and countries with related legal systems the Jury deliberate with the Judge.

How? It would be trial by lawyer, a number of them, randomly selected so as to reduce the chance of corruption, from a pool large enough so as to be reasonably representative.

Someone recently suggested a couple of interesting ideas along this line:

1. Make it compulsory like "national service" to do 3 months (paid, but not well) Jury Service at some point before your 25th birthday. Whilst the jurors would be on average younger than the current system they could be put through some training.
2. Use people who are signing on (who we are paying to "sit at home surfing the internet looking for work")

Make it compulsory like "national service" to do 3 months (paid, but not well) Jury Service at some point before your 25th birthday.

Wouldn't be a very representative demographic.....

Wouldn't be a very representative demographic.....

The jury brings together people with a wide variety of experiences in life, work and sometimes technology, this will be lost if you rely on a pool of pain legal experts more so as tuition fees and student debt close off the legal profession to those from a poorer background. It's trial by peers the vast majority of the legal profession I have dealt with have been far removed from the man in the street by both education and income , I have seen juries up close from both the inside and the outside I haven't seen any grossly perverse verdicts so far

You think that it's a positive thing to have the "man in the street" making decisions in regards to law and guilt? These are the same people that voted for Brexit. I've read about so many misscarriages of justice due to moronic juries, that it beggars belief.

2. Use people who are signing on (who we are paying to "sit at home surfing the internet looking for work")

isnt that what jeremy kyle is for?

Is the current system actually any better [it has a wider age dispersion, but given the efforts some people go to to get out of it, the exemptions that apply, is it actually representative anyway?]

To paraphrase some chap...

Do you want your case to be decided by 12 people who were not clever enough to get out of doing jury duty?

No need for them to be lawyers. They could just be trained lay people.

This system already exists, they're called "magistrates".

i was on jury duty this time last year.
first day - after the introduction bit, told that there was a case that was entering it's third week (and the jurors had been selected from those that hadnt minded if it went on for an extra week) and there was 2 other ongoing cases from the previous week... the building only contained 4 courts - there was a case due to start that day, but there was some work going on in court 4 - so we could relax til the afternoon. They let us go at 3pm when it became obv that nothing was gonna happen that day.

Tuesday - defendant didnt turn up - sent home at lunchtime
Wednesday - defendant pleaded guilty - sent home at lunch
Thursday - wasnt selected out of the pool of available jurors for the case starting that day. Told to come back on monday.
Monday - wasnt selected from the available jurors for the 2 cases that started that day - remaining 2nd weekers told they wouldnt be needed for the planned cases that week...

So never ended up on a jury - but did nearly complete the jigsaw of sorrento that was for our amusment while waiting in the jury holding room.

So never ended up on a jury - but did nearly complete the jigsaw of sorrento that was for our amusment while waiting in the jury holding room.

Sorry - what? You had a room and furniture and some sort of ackowledgement that you were going to have to spend a lot of time waiting about?

I wonder if the variation in how attentive or enthusiastic people have found the juries they've served on my be influenced by the culture in individual courts.

My jury service was typified by spending almost all the first day with 60 odd other people waiting for an indefinite amount of time, with no information and little attendance from staff (who seemed to communicate in shrugging and skilfully avoiding eye contact) in a room with no heating, no refreshments, and no furniture bar a few cold marble planters some of us could perch ourselves on.

There was an atmosphere of resentment from the outset.

yeah, luxury i guess 😆 Had some furnished chairs (sofas in the room for second weekers!) dunno about heating, but no air con (or opening windows)

The Jury Co-ordinator would arrive for 10am, take a register... then disappear. they'd pop their head round the door again later to say if we could go home or just go for lunch.

I did it a few years ago.
Boring case..he said she said.no evidence.

However, I was thoroughly impressed at the judge's keenness to have lunch at EXACTLY half one every day.
He'd simply stop someone mid sentence, stand up, and walk out!
I compared my profession to his, and chuckled at how different the approaches to the work/lunch importance was!
(But that I think medics who skip lunch do themselves any favors!)

DrP