Do we need to overhaul the jury system?

[HollyBerryBush]

Just reading this mornings papers online regarding the Vicky Price case having to be retried because the jury couldnt reach a majority verdict. Largely because they didnt understand what was going on.

The Judge has commented that there was a fundamental deficit in understanding. They couldnt even decide and had to ask the judge what 'reasonable doubt' meant

Notwithstanding a retrial is going to cost the tax payer millions.

Anecdotally - my mate was on a jury at Belmarsh some years ago. All very Tony Hancock sketch, Friday afternoon, they decided on a quick conviction rather than have to come back on Monday because the defendant lived on a notorious estate, therefore if he wasn't guilty of that offence, he was probably guilty of something else he hadn't been caught for .

Conversely another mate was on a jury up at Southwark. The defendants wife played bingo with my mates mum. She returned a not guilty verdict on that one on the grounds her mum liked the lady

I do realise that the jury system is probably the best model the world has for a fair and equitable trial, being jusged by your peers etc - but it's just not infallable is it?

I think professional jurors would be the way forward!

YABU. It might not be perfect but it is a lot better than any alternative. It is the judge's job to make sure the jury know what beyond reasonable doubt is & to explain the more complex stuff - that 's what he/she is paid for! I am sure over the centuries juries have been the same.

That would be my dream job - professional juror.

I do think some of the questions they asked were a bit odd but I don't have an issue with 'reasonable doubt' being clarified.

I dread being called for jury duty. Some people love it. They should put out a call for people who wouldn't mind doing it, train them up and pay them proper expenses. Like special constables

It is open to abuse such as you describe. From what I remember of my time doing jury service your friend should have declared her link to the defendants family and would have been removed from the jury. Someone was removed for something similar on one of our cases so your friend is the one out of order there.

The judge said that it was the worst case of a jury's incomprehension of their role he had seen in 30 years.

If that really was the worst in so long then it should strengthen our confidence in the jury system rather than weaken it.

Some of their questions were quite reasonable - others less so, but not totally bonkers.

A jury system reminds me of the old description of democracy - the worst possible system with the exception of all the others.

I thought it smacked of people wanting to milk the freebies - the poor foreman seemed to be having to ask questions he couldn't explain to some jurors. Whether they were thick as pig sh*t or just milking it for free hotel/meals or whatever as it was a high profile case I don't know, but there was clearly a mouthy twat or two in there causing issues!

I was a juror last year and from very limited experience I think that a lot of what happens when the jury deliberates is decided by the mixture of personalities. I think that's one of its' strengths, but maybe it was a weakness here. Some people wander off-topic and start speculating and stop looking at the evidence and you really need some firm people in the mix to keep things on track and keep hammering home that the decision has to be made based on what was heard during the trial and only that.

I was bemused when I read that article. Like the judge I had no idea how they reached that point and still had all of those questions. Especially about reasonable doubt and speculation- you're told at the very beginning about that and what you can and can't do.

I don't think professional jurors would be a good idea, personally. Susceptible to bribery, blackmail, corruption...liable to start thinking that everyone's guilty after a while (I imagine it would make you cynical). I would not want to tried by a professional juror one bit. The current system isn't perfect, but I prefer it to the alternatives.

I too heard things that horrified me- "It wouldn't have gone this far if they hadn't done something" was a particularly disturbing argument from someone in favour of convicting. But that's why the other 11 people were there. To provide counterarguments and balance.

To be fair with the bingo thing, that never came out until a few weeks into the trial, it was a highly complex fraud case.

Which again highlights problems - my mate isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer! She didnt understand the case at all and spent 6 months day dreaming.

The only thing with a professional jury, eventually you'd end up a bit 'heard that excuse before' and become quite desensitised very quickly.

Ours was when the trial had started too and everything had to be stopped and a new jury selected.

I did jury service years ago in my early twenties. It was a very complicated murder trial.

I enjoyed the experience I have to say but it was hard. I work in the legal field and still found it mind boggling. Most of us on the jury felt completely out of our depth and were extremely confused by the legalities and barrister speak. We spent hours deliberating and found it extremely difficult to reach a verdict on the evidence presented to us and spent a lot of time arguing amongst ourselves and falling out.

I'm average intelligence but some of the other jurors were not and really did not understand what was going on half the time.

I'm not sure what needs to change if anything. I'm not sure what would be a better alternative.

What would help is if courts/legal experts etc would talk in more lay terms and present the evidence to the jury in a better way to avoid confusion.

Having said that mine was a particularly difficult case with multiple counsel and a million witnesses!

YES! I did jury service about 2 years ago but was horrified at the quality of juror. The people were just so disinterested in the case and on the whole the only people who could do a 'longer' case were either unemployed or elderly meaning that there wasn't a true cross-section of society represented on these cases.
The judge practically told us to find the defendant guilty (rape) but some jurors refused point blank to see that he was. One said "He said he didn't do it and I believe him, why would he lie?" I was and all at the same time. Another said (as we started deliberating) "I'm saying not guilty and none of you will change my mind". He then picked up his copy of the Daily Star and refused to engage in any discussion for the next 3 days.
Really frustrating experience and saddened to think that the fate of people (both defendants and victims) lies in the hands of such people

I've also heard stories of people who really don't want the responsibility of jury service and deciding someones fate.

atouch have you done Jury service? I've done it twice and there was very little in the way of freebies to get excited about, unless you count coffee and meal vouchers which you have to spend in the courthouse cafe. If your employer doesn't pay you for being off during jury service you can claim from the court, but the amount paid is nowhere near a full days wage. I had to use public transport as they wouldn't pay parking, but I still had to park at the train station. I lost out financially both times.

OP, I see what your saying but I do think its the best system. Professional jurors could still be corrupt. The big issue for me is how you would judge how good someone is as a professional. Conviction rates? Hardly encouraging impartiality. Paying someone as a professional could easily lead to a juror doing what they think is required of them rather than what they believe to be right and just. Our system isn't perfect but I do think it works most of the time.

Surely that's part of the problem, if you have a job that requires some responsibility etc you're more likely to be excused because they just don't financially recompense you properly.
I'm self employed and it could have cost me thousands when my call came up, so I was excused. I'd quite like to do it otherwise, but I can't afford to lose out. Maybe there should be an online system where you declares when you can do it, and everyone has to do one within x amount of time?

I haves friend who's a QC and has always said that basically juries are pointless for fraud trials as its so complex.

in this case, it sounds like the random throw of the dice meant that twelve villages were having to do without their idiot for a few days. The judge had no choice given the questions that were asked - clearly demonstrating that these people had almost no understanding of what was going on.

'can we speculate? 'can we use as evidence things not presented at trial?'

scary.

I did jury service at Southwark. One of the cases I sat on was a fraud one - by day three nobody was listening to a word of evidence/legal argument because it was so complicated and boring.

I was desperate to get my service done with as I was self employed at the time and I was losing money. But others on the jury were very much in favour of stringing it out for the free sarnies

Fraud trials are notoriously complicated. I'd hate to end up on one of them.

When I did jury service I never got paid by my employer at the time and had to claim it back. I had to have proof of what I earned so I couldn't claim more than my wages so there is no way anyone cam milk it. I got food vouchers for the court cafe and train fare reimbursed. I never lost out financially but I certainly never gained either.

I think perhaps you need to make people take some kind of IQ test. And use of English/English comprehension test. And perhaps watch a DVD explaining how the legal system works in the UK.

Good god Nancy the food at Southwark must have been better than Nottingham! I agree that the financial implications are part of the problem if its making a large amount of people defer.

I'm not sure that the whole thing needs to be overhauled, the jury system has got to be the fairest possible way of obtaining justice, but something needs to change.

Jurors should not have to lose out financially to be be part of a jury, justice is something that is so fundamentally important that it needs to be funded properly. We cannot possibly expect to have high quality jurys if the only people that can afford to be on one are people who are either so wealthy that losing pay means nothing to them or they have income from somewhere other than a wage.

It is essential that people are intelligent enough to understand what is going on in court, and I think jurors should have to have a minimum level of qualification and references.

I'm one of those people who would lose interest in certain cases however I would love to do a high profile murder case as grim as that sounds. Someone copying a credit card would bore me and I would just zone out and vote with the majority sadly. Thankfully I've never been called.

That really would be my dream job. Dp and I talk about this regularly as he gets summoned all the time and hates it and I have been once and I love it.

I thought when I was doing Jury Duty that it was all a bit cliquey, if you had a different view from the little gang that formed then they quickly went off on one. It was horrid as it was a rape case and I felt that they weren't looking at it fairly but I also realised some of them were only looking at it in a way they could understand.

Jury system is the best there is, but unfortunately a lot of people are thick as pig shit / lazy / totally unsuitable to be on a jury.

I wouldn't want someone with the IQ of plankton deciding my fate.

I'm not convinced the jury system is the best system at all.

I did jury service once and, over all, I came away with a good deal of confidence in the system. The period of service started with a video and an explanation of what was expected of us and, at all times through the trial, it felt as though the judge and court officials went to great lengths to ensure we the jury understood what was being said and what was going on.

I agree that there could be an unfortunate mix of jurors, though you would hope that with 12 you have a reasonable chance of getting some people who take it seriously. In our group we had maybe 2 or 3 who had made their mind up as soon as they heard the charges. (In fact on day one on the way out one elderly man whispered to me "Can we just find him guilty now and get it over with?" ) At least a third of us took it seriously and debated the evidence and the rest were kind of make up the numbers and went along with what the majority said.