AIBU to think self employed people should be exempt from Jury Service?

[Petal02]

Yes, I know everyone should do their civic duty but ….

DH is self-employed, and the winter months are his busiest season. He was originally asked to do Jury Service in November, but requested a deferral on the grounds that two weeks out during his peak season would be a disaster for a sole trader. The ‘compensation for lost earnings’ is just over £60 per day (or £32 if you’re only needed for a half day) for a two week jury service period, which is way, way short of DH’s usual earnings. And whichever time of year he was called, we knew he was going to take a fairly significant hit, financially.

Thankfully a deferral was granted, and he was given a revised start date of Monday 6 July.

So ……. DH obviously didn’t accept any work for the period w/c 6 July or w/c 13 July (even though he planned to try and fit a few small jobs in). On the afternoon of Friday 3 July he got a phone call saying he wouldn’t be needed on Monday 6th, and that he was to phone up after 5pm on Monday 6th, to see if he would be needed for Tuesday 7th. The Court Officer went on to say that it was likely he may not have to attend at all, but he had to stay on standby for the two week period, phoning up after 5pm each day, to enquire about the following day. Which is just a joke for a self-employed person.

As it turned out, when he phoned on Monday night, he was then stood down for his entire period of jury service. But in the meantime he’d turned down a lot of work, and even though he’s now able to accept jobs again for the coming fortnight, we’ve made quite a loss and I’m really not happy.

I don’t think the self-employed should have to do this. DH had to work really hard to pull a small business through the recession, and jury service has been unhelpful.

No twelve I'm not because presumably the employed people would still have a job to go back to after a long trial but I would probably have to start my business from scratch ( with a damaged reputation) as my clients couldn't wait that long and would go elsewhere.
I got called for jury service, I worked out on a week long trial I would lose around £1000 but any longer and I would most likely lose £50000.
I really wanted to do it as I was very interested in the process but it was absolutely impossible.

I'm freelance and I've just done jury service and lost around 1k in business. I too got messed around, cancelling a client for the time I was scheduled, then getting told I wasn't needed, then given a new date and having to cancel another job. Other people there were getting paid by their company as usual or didn't work and were getting their usual benefits.

The evidence was so complicated that had I been standing in the dock, I would have preferred to have been judged by a panel of experts.

3 young people on the jury didn't even understand that our decision was the decision - they thought the judge would have the chance to agree or disagree.

A bit of a farce really!

Also, what happens to people with a public profile? Do they not get called or do they have some way of getting out of it?

or didn't work and were getting their usual benefits

How does that work then, when you clearly aren't "available for work" ?

JSA is unaffected unless jury duty is longer than 8 weeks, I assume because they want people to do it.

Actually I believe that using 12 men and women who have no experience of justice whatsoever, no full know he if the law and certainly no idea how to not get affected by the different tactics used to influence them, is doing a disservice to the persons being judged and to the victims.

As gardener said, some cases are complex. Some are very emotional. Etc
These people would be better served by 'experts' as it is in other countries (at the very least to guide the jury, to use in combination with etc)

Actually I believe that using 12 men and women who have no experience of justice whatsoever, no full know he if the law and certainly no idea how to not get affected by the different tactics used to influence them, is doing a disservice to the persons being judged and to the victims.

Jury trials originate when people lived in small communities, and it was predicated upon the jury knowing the accused, The idea being they vouchsafed for the defendant, knowing their character.

Lord Devlin, one of the greatest English judges of the last century, wrote:

Each jury is a little parliament. The jury sense is the parliamentary sense. I cannot see the one dying and the other surviving. The first object of any tyranny in Whitehall would be to make Parliament utterly subservient to his will; and the next to overthrow or diminish trial by jury, for no tyrant could afford to leave a subject’s freedom in the hands of twelve of his countrymen. So that trial by jury is more than an instrument of justice and more than one wheel of the constitution: it is the lamp that shows that freedom lives.

TTWK the point is that the system needs an overhaul. It doesn't reflect the working situations of many jurors these days. It was set up in an era when people had jobs for life. Why should people's livelihoods be threatened just so they can do their duty. If we can pay lawyers, judges and expert witnesses £££££s per hour, then we can afford to treat jurors fairly for their effort. Tbh it's stressful enough sitting through the horrendous violence of the trial without being up at 4am and until 1am to get work done either side of the grisly details, just so your family doesn't go into debt. there's no need for it to be this way.

*Everything about jury duty is awful.

But it's better than the alternatives, so suck it up everyone.*

It is better than the alternatives? Why are some of us so on thrall to the jury system. Personally I would much rather be tried by a panel of accountable judges than a random selection of citizens, many of whom have no interest or desire to be there.

And even if it is the best system, it doesn't mean it can't be reformed... Some on here seem to assume it's self-evident that there can't be exceptions, but why? Yes, there would be more bureaucracy, but we have exceptions for (supposedly) valid cases all kinds of aspects of public life, from tax credits, to tv licences to eligibility for adult education funding. Why not juries?

The response that exceptions would be unfair isn't strong either.... The line of argument that attempts to justify this is the same as the argument that we should all pay the same amount of tax irrespective of ability to pay.... (ie you pay £10k of tax if your unemployed or a millionaire).....no one seriously argues for this!

I wouldn't mind being tried by a panel of judges/ professionals. They'd be mostly white, middle class, well spoken, above average intelligence, well educated and between 25 and 60 in age. We'd have a lot in common. If I didn't tick those boxes I doubt I'd want them judging me.
The jury system does work, it allows for excusal in individual circumstances and even selection so that there's a reasonable chance at a peer group. Excuse large groups en masse from jury duty and the effect is the same as using just judges and pros, little chance of a peer group judging you

I doubt that the cost of the jury is the largest cost in the criminal justice system, and so it seems that it would help things a long a lot were those who have to do their public duty on jury service were paid a more generous allowance for doing so.

Even if you do something a bit outlandish like multiply the rates by ten it wouldn't add up to a vast amount in the scheme of things, and there would be a hell of a lot less moaning about being called to jury service.

I would far rather that then to undermine the whole edifice.

Lurkedforever.... Good points well made - food for thought. I still tend to believe the adverse impact, often profoundly damaging, on self-employed people does not outweigh the societal benefit of requiring their service (even given that deferrals can be obtained). I speak as someone who is employed and would be paid for time should I be called.

flashbang I don't disagree at all that some self employed people should be excused, I agree entirely that the effects of jury duty could have a hugely detrimental impact on some. I just object to the idea of being excused purely on that basis, rather than on individual need.

To be honest, the way jury service is structured in England, it's obvious jurors were only ever meant to be independently wealthy men. It's frozen in a Victorian timewarp.

Of course, the corollary is that independently wealthy gentlemen would have regarded jury duty as part of their imperative to operate muscular philanthropy. Peabody estate and all that.

YABU