Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Help] Jury Summons - Jury Service
- Thread starter mile oak
- Start date
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
Pretty sure you can duck it once if you have a reasonable excuse, but the second time, you gotta go.
Alternatively, just tell them that you're a racist
Alternatively, just tell them that you're a racist
When I was called it clashed with something at work I couldn’t miss - simply told them (think it was on a form). Got a reply asking when I was available and was reallocated a date that worked. All very simple (assuming you haven’t already ducked it)
If you have a legit reason to avoid it, you’ll be fine.
Otherwise I’d recommend attending. Can be very interesting.
Otherwise I’d recommend attending. Can be very interesting.
Stato
Well-known member
- Dec 21, 2011
- 7,385
Careful, they'll make you a judge.
It’s your civic duty and responsibility. I had you down as an English patriot, not a traitor.
US Seagull
Well-known member
I just last week had jury duty. Not in the UK, obviously. I didn't make the cut for the jury, but it ended up taking two days before I was dismissed.
It was surprisingly not boring. Maybe it helped that it was a murder trial?
I think I blew it when I said I didn't like guns and came from a culture where guns and gun crimes are exceedingly rare. The guy had shot a guy in his driveway and I suspect the defense was going to argue some kind of self-defense / stand your ground / castle doctrine defense.
It was surprisingly not boring. Maybe it helped that it was a murder trial?
I think I blew it when I said I didn't like guns and came from a culture where guns and gun crimes are exceedingly rare. The guy had shot a guy in his driveway and I suspect the defense was going to argue some kind of self-defense / stand your ground / castle doctrine defense.
- Oct 17, 2008
- 14,663
From the excellent gov.uk website;
Under no circumstances should you lie about your reasons for avoiding your duty. And absolutely do not do not try and get yourself excused from jury selection by using the classic trope “I’m a racist” or similar. Nobody actually does this in this country in real life, they just tell other people to do so on the internet because it’s an urban myth.
Unlike the US, we do not have voir dire, so 99% of the time you will not be questioned. If you make an in court or out of court statement along the lines of “I can’t be fair because I’m racist”, on the plus side you will likely be removed from the jury pool. On the negative side you will likely also receive a contempt of court charge from the judge.
Under no circumstances should you lie about your reasons for avoiding your duty. And absolutely do not do not try and get yourself excused from jury selection by using the classic trope “I’m a racist” or similar. Nobody actually does this in this country in real life, they just tell other people to do so on the internet because it’s an urban myth.
Unlike the US, we do not have voir dire, so 99% of the time you will not be questioned. If you make an in court or out of court statement along the lines of “I can’t be fair because I’m racist”, on the plus side you will likely be removed from the jury pool. On the negative side you will likely also receive a contempt of court charge from the judge.
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
I was, of course, kidding about the racist thing. I saw it in a US comedy series once.
- Oct 17, 2008
- 14,663
Sadly a lot of people believe jokes they read online, just wanted to be clear…
US Seagull
Well-known member
I did not know that there was no voir dire. I and quite glad to never really had any interaction with either the British or the American justice system (outside my recent brush with jury duty). I know the US system is mostly the British system but with fewer silly wigs, but I didn't know that voir dire wasn't a thing in the British system. So how are juries selected? Is it just random and the lawyers have no say in it?
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
We were reduced to 11 when one of the blokes with us doing jury service was allowed to leave, after the trial we were on went over into a 3rd week (we'd already sat on a couple of trials during the initial 2 week period). The guy was self employed and said it was costing him fortunes to be off work, so the judge dismissed him - so there is some wiggle room. Judge wanted a 9/11 majority for a guilty verdict to be carried. We didn't get it (hung jury). It went to a retrial a few months later, and they convicted her within a few hours!
US Seagull
Well-known member
So now that I'm curious, I had to start googling for how UK juries work:
insidehmcts.blog.gov.uk
The judge also asked everybody if they had any scheduling conflicts before the jury was selected. I'm sure some people were excused for that too. They told us the trial would likely last into this week (since Monday was a holiday and the judge, apparently, had a scheduling conflict for last Thursday). I've been checking the court website and it seems like they've only gotten into closing arguments today.
Understanding the jury selection process – Inside HMCTS
News and updates from the HM Courts & Tribunals Service
insidehmcts.blog.gov.uk
Okay, so they select a panel, same as here, and then select a jury from that panel, but at random? I have to assume they must at least ask potential jurors if they personally know the defendant, the victim, or any of the counsel don't they?
So here they select 12 (for a criminal trial, apparently only 8 for a civil trial) and also 2 alternates. The alternates are supposed to sit in on the whole trial, but they don't get in on the deliberations unless one of the original 12 jurors is unable to continue for whatever reason (like the reason the guy on your jury had).
The judge also asked everybody if they had any scheduling conflicts before the jury was selected. I'm sure some people were excused for that too. They told us the trial would likely last into this week (since Monday was a holiday and the judge, apparently, had a scheduling conflict for last Thursday). I've been checking the court website and it seems like they've only gotten into closing arguments today.
HantsSeagull
Well-known member
ignoring the OP (sorry!) - i did jury service in Hove some years ago. As the son of a policeman i thought i was exempt. Not.
i found the whole experience interesting but a terrible responsibility, where people seemed happy just to say guilty to get it over and done with. not to mention there were at least 2 serving policemen on our jury. They didnt admit it but it was obvious to anyone with a brain (only me obviously!) - and a quick google search confirmed.
i found the whole experience interesting but a terrible responsibility, where people seemed happy just to say guilty to get it over and done with. not to mention there were at least 2 serving policemen on our jury. They didnt admit it but it was obvious to anyone with a brain (only me obviously!) - and a quick google search confirmed.
- Oct 17, 2008
- 14,663
I should clarify, I mean specifically jury selection voir dire is not akin to the US system as a matter of course for 99% of cases. There are exceptions, but these are usually extremely high profile cases which are expected to run for a long time (months), or cases which are a matter of national security. In these cases, the judge will usually talk to the jury, explaining the nature of the case, expected length and so on, and then instruct the jury to complete a questionnaire. The questions are things like “do you have friends or relatives who are police officers/work for government security agencies” and so forth.
The judge can then instruct both barristers to question the juror to ensure impartiality, within strict guidelines relating to their questionnaire answers and without fishing for opinions. It’s a legal yes/no, not a “we don’t want them because we don’t think they’ll be on our side”. As I say, 99% of cases don’t do/need this and are 2-3 days to a week.
Voir dire obviously relating to witnesses, experts and evidence still happens constantly in trials relating to admissibility etc.
For each jury trial, 15 jurors are called, and 12 selected at random by the court clerk. They are brought in, and in the jury box is a sheet of paper with the name of the accused and the charges. The defendant is present in the dock. The jury are instructed to inform the judge (via a clerk) immediately if they recognise the defendant. If they do (I’ve seen this happen exactly twice across hundreds of cases) they are then questioned by both sides and it would appear pretty much always removed. (I’ve never seen a case where they haven’t been).
That’s pretty much it.
*disclaimer - I am not a solicitor, but I have watched thousands of hours of court cases as a spectator
and I’ve done jury duty myself twice, both for alleged serious sexual crimes 
Last edited:
- Oct 17, 2008
- 14,663
Had a rozzer and a criminal law solicitor on one of mine… they didn’t see eye to eye.
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
In my experience the 12 of us were selected at random, and then told by the judge in a pre-trial briefing that if we know the defendant then we MUST declare it. Then he went through the other rules (strictly no discussing the trial outside of court, no postings on social media, no on-line Googling of the defendant, witnesses etc etc). There was no 1 to 1 interview process to establish our apparent eligabilty or suitablity.So now that I'm curious, I had to start googling for how UK juries work:
Understanding the jury selection process – Inside HMCTS
News and updates from the HM Courts & Tribunals Service
Okay, so they select a panel, same as here, and then select a jury from that panel, but at random? I have to assume they must at least ask potential jurors if they personally know the defendant, the victim, or any of the counsel don't they?
My jury service was rather dull. Some tax avoidance thing with a car import scam.
The police brought the case and did an awful job of providing and presenting evidence.
We found him not guilty very quickly. Not because we thought he didn’t do it but because the evidence was simply not there. We could not convict.
Anyway, that took one afternoon and one morning and then we were released. Spent a paid week down the pub and never got called back.
Worked out pretty well.
The police brought the case and did an awful job of providing and presenting evidence.
We found him not guilty very quickly. Not because we thought he didn’t do it but because the evidence was simply not there. We could not convict.
Anyway, that took one afternoon and one morning and then we were released. Spent a paid week down the pub and never got called back.
Worked out pretty well.