Jury Service - have you?

[WATFORD zero]

Finally got called at 51 and did a multiple GBH case at Brighton which was quite interesting. We were also taken out the back door at the end of the trial so we didn't mix with the families and friends of the defendants.

Only pain for me was the timing of it. After 30 years working for large companies where i would have been paid in full, and 2 years of retirement where i would have welcomed it, i had got bored and just started up a business 6 months before. I was tempted to delay it, but decided to get it over and done with. I hadn't realised how little time the jury spent in court daily and could sort out most things outside of the time needed in court.

 

[Lurker]

You can defer it pretty easily - if it's inconvenient for work, etc.

You are only allowed to defer once, so you need to be careful.
You might decide to defer for a fairly trivial reason, just because you don't fancy it, and when your second calling comes it might be at a time that is unbelievably inconvenient for you ... but you won't be allowed to refuse.


I've done Jury Service twice, and it's been a couple of the most frustrating episodes of my life, mostly because of some of the other twats you are locked in a room with while you debate the case you've just heard.

The first time we were deliberating on a case involving theft, receiving stolen goods and a credit card scam all rolled into one (it was complicated!).
The defendant was blatantly guilty, he hardly even bothered to put up a defence.
We retired to the jury room expecting to be back in 5 minutes.
We went round the room for the obligatory vote ... "guilty" .. " guilty" .. "guilty" .. "guilty" ...... until the very last juror who said "not guilty"!

"What the f***?"
"Have you even been awake in that courtroom?"

We asked him to explain ... his response was "I don't need to explain, it's my right to decide, and I've decided not guilty."
We wasted hours in that room going over the trial, showing this fella why we had come to the conclusions we had, but he wouldn't listen to any reasoned argument.

To cut a long story short ... the judge eventually allowed a majority verdict and he was guilty by 11 to 1.
After the verdict they read out his previous ... and he had a history of convictions longer than both of your arms put together.

I had the misfortune of walking out of the building behind this fine upstanding citizen of the jury, so i asked him if he now felt he was mistaken in his belief that the guy was innocent.
His response was that he didn't care. He hated the Police, there was no way on earth he was ever going to side with the Police, and he could now be at peace with himself because a guilty man was now off the streets, but he hadn't made any personal contribution to the Police winning the day.

On my second stint of service, it was an even worse scenario.
Armed robbery.
There was CCTV evidence on top of the conventional witness statements etc.
Again, it was pretty obvious at the end of the trial that the defendant was guilty.
The main plank of his defence was his partner who stood in the dock and swore on oath that he was in bed with her the night it happened, and then she broke down in tears claiming he would never do something like this knowing it would leave her to bring up their 2yr old child alone if he went to prison, especially as she didn't have a job and therefore no income.
She was clearly working to a script. Very clever ... try and introduce the sympathy vote.

One big mistake that I think they make in court cases is to give the defendant's address to the Jury.

At the end of the case we retired to the room ... 10 x guilty, 2 x non-guilty.
Not good enough for the judge, he wanted a unanimous verdict.

Several hours of debate and argument ensued, vote re-taken ... 9 x guilty, 3 x non-guilty.
FFS.

What had happened was that one of the original 'not guilty' jurors used to live on the same council estate as the defendant.
He didn't know the defendant, but he knew the area the guy lived in very well, and he said it was like the bronx, and he sympathised with anybody who lived there turning to crime, because everybody did it just to survive. He couldn't be party to possibly sending this lad to jail and therefore leaving this poor young girl alone to bring up this 2 year old child.
Upon hearing this explanation, one of the other jurors turned to the 'sympathetic' one, and said that he also used to live on that estate, what street did you live on?
It turned out they both lived in exactly the same street, albeit a few years apart ... and from that point on they were the best of bosom buddies and they were always going to vote in exactly the same way.
Thus 2 x not guilty became 3 x not guilty.
The 3rd not guily verdict was from a retired old boy who claimed he was an 'expert' in photography.
He decided very early on in the trial that the Crown Prosecution 'expert' witness on the CCTV footage didn't know jack shit compared to what the old boy knows ... therefore his evidence couldn't be relied upon ... therefore not guilty. He wouldn't even listen to the other evidence that made up the 'guilty' conclusion.

The judge sent us back to the Jury room 3 times before he called a halt.
It was pretty obvious from his tone and his body language that the judge was quite angry with us for what should have been a fairly clear cut case, but he declared the trial null and void, and then dismissed us.

We asked the Jury usher what would happen to the trial now.
He said it was up to the CPS to ask for a fresh trial, but this was such an expensive case, the usher's personal opinion was that the CPS would probably not bother, and the defendant would walk free.

So effectively ... 3 determined jurors can make a mockery of our so-called wonderful judicial system.

So frustrating.

 

[ElectricNaz]

I can agree with that, in the 3rd case I mentioned above with a 9/3 majority verdict which was upheld, the 9th person voted guilty purely because she couldn't arrange childcare for the following week.

We were told anything less than a 9/3 outcome would result in the case continuing into our 3rd week.

Disgusting IMO. Still to this day I'm sure he was not guilty. The guy was black and didn't speak English either (spoke through an interpreter) and I've no doubt that swayed some of the guys in the room.

 

[Perfidious Albion]

Never been called despite always being on the voters roll.... Pity really, I always rather fancied myself as doing the "Henry Fonda bit" as in the old film "12 Angry Men" ....that 's me, always the idealist

I am a little surprised at the number of posters who say that they have been called on reaching 18 years.. I know it is the legal age but I would not want my future to be decided by some of the teens that I have worked with..The above posts about people changing their verdicts out of sentiment or personal convenience only confirms my worst fears about the system.

 

[Seagull over Canaryland]

Never been called despite always being on the voters roll.... Pity really, I always rather fancied myself as doing the "Henry Fonda bit" as in the old film "12 Angry Men" ....that 's me, always the idealist

I am a little surprised at the number of posters who say that they have been called on reaching 18 years.. I know it is the legal age but I would not want my future to be decided by some of the teens that I have worked with..The above posts about people changing their verdicts out of sentiment or personal convenience only confirms my worst fears about the system.

Yes I must admit I would be concerned at some 18 year olds being on a jury that could decide my future. You would like to think each jury member would be highly diligent and give every care to weigh up the facts before them, but do wonder.

I have appeared as a witness in various types of Court hearings and it is not something to be complacent about. I would certainly recommend punters finding time to visit a Magistrates or Crown Court to get a feel for how proceedings are conducted. Much of it can be mundane and time consuming but also very interesting and helps to de-mystify some of the potential fears that can understandably arise. It is certainly dramatic to see a Jury give its verdict and then be present when the Judge passes sentence, hear the closing comments and then the hear words 'take him (or her) down' and then see the convicted defendant led away. Also to see the effects on the Jury and in the public gallery.