Jury Service

[Wiltinglillies]

Inspired by (but not about) the thread on innocent people, I wondered how many who had been on Jury service felt it was a positive experience and that the justice system was correctly served by you and your jury colleagues. (Iyswim)

I've never been asked, nor have any close family.

Don't fgs reply if you're on active jury service right now!!!

I've done it once. It was a positive experience in the sense I'd always wanted to do it and found it all very interesting. The actual case was difficult - a teenager accusing another teenager of rape. The accuser's story changed so many times and had so many inconsistencies we had to come to a not guilty verdict. Interesting to be part of the process.

I have and was a little shocked at the perspectives of others on the jury. It was fascinating, probably for all the wrong reasons.

For example: 2 men convicted of a string of thefts of office equipment, caught because it was all for export, not comapatible her in UK. Pretty open and shut case, fingerprints, bank records, eye witnesses, confession from another involved.

But one juror lept going on about how one of the witnesses (a dealer who had ordered some of the equipment) was obviously the ring leader, he looked shifty and sounded odd (he was from the other side of the country, worked there a, lived there and had been transported here for the case!). The man was one of the victims but we wasted half an hour trying to persuade one man that he was being preposterous!

The othee case more than half of the jury couldn't bring themselves to convict as the man had a girlfriend with 3 kids, none of whom were his, but how would they survive? I may have got a bit shouty!

Never been asked unfortunately.
I’ve needed a jury though and it is utterly heartbreaking when they get it wrong.

I have done jury service twice, and all my immediate family have done it.

The first time was at the Old Bailey which was amazing. It was a rape case and it really made me see why the conviction rates are so low. It was a “he said, she said” case and therefore very hard to for the prosecution to prove their case. The second time was st Southwark Crown Court and was an arson case.

I really enjoyed it, but was lucky enough not to have cases that had lots of graphic evidence or were very long. I think it is a good experience. All the people I served with took it very seriously (as they should).

I was called, but unfortunately didn't get chosen to sit on a jury. 2 weeks of missing work, turning up to court and sitting around for hours on end. It was so disruptive, soul destroyingly boring and a complete and utter waste of time. I would do my utmost to get out of it if I was called again.

I've been a juror for a trial on a shooting and we found the defendant guilty - he ended up getting 20 years. I am sure he was guilty but it was a horrible feeling having so much control over another person's life.

My fellow jurors were mainly decent and reasonable people. There were a couple of times I did wonder though!

One juror kept insisting that the defendant must have done it as he wouldn't be here otherwise. Juror had no interest in examining the evidence at all, just kept saying the police wouldn't have gone to the trouble of bringing the case to court if he was innocent.

Another juror seemed pissed off by the whole process and barely said a word when we were discussing things. At the end we'd all come to the conclusion defendant was guilty apart from this juror. When pushed to make a decision juror kept saying they weren't convinced of defendant's guilt but wouldn't provide any counter arguments or reasoning why he may be innocent. We had to reach a unanimous verdict and it took a loooooong time before the juror finally conceded defendant was guilty. I suspect it was only because they wanted to go home.

I found the courtroom a lot more intimidating and claustrophobic than I thought I would.

edwinbear that is what I was expecting to happen. I am a part time author and was hoping to have a couple of weeks off work to do some writing. Was all prepared with my laptop. I was called in straight away and the trial lasted exactly 2 weeks

I did it a few years ago.
It was strongly impressed upon us by the judges that if we had the slightest doubt, we must return a Not Guilty verdict.

We were escorted back and forth to the room where we were left to deliberate, so there could be no chance of anyone trying to influence us. In the bigger case it was 10 of us (NG) against 2 (G) and those two had evidently made up their minds from the very beginning - it was a difficult case, where I wondered at first who on earth I was going to believe, but the evidence gradually helped a lot.

There was a great deal about NOT discussing cases with anyone, or trying to google for info about the defendant - strictly forbidden. There was a poster on the jury room wall about someone - a university lecturer - who’d been found out for ‘researching’ the defendant and sentenced to 8 months in prison.

I was left with confidence in the system - or at least confidence that while it was likely that a guilty person would sometimes go free, it was at least less likely that an innocent person would be wrongly convicted.

Anyone who’s going to do it, do take a good book or two! There is a lot of sitting about.

@SapphosRock that's really bad luck....it would have been a fantastic environment to get some writing done whilst waiting to be called.

I sat for a month on a case of armed robbery. The defendants were clearly guilty but the police had unfortunately messed up some of the investigation, lost evidence and acted unlawfully, and we therefore had to find them not guilty. However, we needed a unanimous verdict and we were locked in a room for 3 days trying to persuade one man (not born in the UK, who spoke little English) why we had to go with not guilty, despite them clearly having done it. We totally understood why he wanted to find them guilty, but he didn't understand why we couldn't. He just gave in, in the end, but clearly didn't understand the justice system here.

The whole experience was fascinating and I'm still in touch with 4 of my fellow jurors, 8 years later (including the lovely chap who didn't understand, who has since married an English lady and whose English has improved immeasurably!)

58 and never been called. Wish I had.

I've done it once. It was a slam-dunk "he's obviously" innocent, and all the jurors couldn't for the life of us understand why it was brought to trial in the first place. It was a bit weird tbh.

I've quite recently been a juror, but at a Coroner's Court - so rather than finding someone guilty or otherwise, we were seeking to agree a conclusion into the death of a person in prison.

The coroner's system itself I found really inspiring - that we as a jury were bought together to ensure a life that had been lost was thoroughly investigated. But I've been left with a feeling that our prison system, our MH services and our care system are utterly not fit for purpose and that we are continually failing some of our most vulnerable people.

Was on the jury of a rape trial and I just thought I would hate to ever be on trial because some of the people were total muppets. Two of the jury made their mind up from the opening day (of a three week trial) and declared him guilty, so they were incapable of any rational discussion. The case ended up being thrown out due to our inability to even come to a majority. There was a retrial recently and the jury found him not guilty.

I did it before I had children. I thought of it as a few weeks out of work. However it was a child abuse case and I found it very difficult to listen to the evidence. Thank goodness I had no doubts he was guilty as that must be hard when you are not sure. It was unanimous and I didn’t feel bad at all that he got sentenced to prison time (this was something I always thought I would struggle with).

The jury are treated amazingly and everything is explained to you before and during.

I think I would find it harder to do it now I have children.

I am a criminal barrister - i have huge faith in the jury system. It is very rare that any of us lawyers feel the jury haven't paid attention and given the case the necessary care and consideration.

I've done jury duty. It was certainly an experience and eye opener, and did make me wonder if jury is really fair, allowing people with no experience or legal knowledge to make such big decisions.

For example, during deliberation 2 members of our jury decided the accused "must be guilty" due to similarities between our case and different, high profile cases which had been reported in the media but had nothing at all to do with our case. Me and other jurers were presenting them with reasons why we thought the accused was not guilty because of x, y and z (it was stressed to us right from the beginning that the onus is to prove guilt, not prove innocence and the slightest doubt must bring a verdict of not guilty) and they just kept harping on that "well it happened in......." I found it very frustrating. Another made it clear they had no interest in the case and just went along with everyone else cos they wanted to go home. In the end, we were able to use majority decision and I truly believe the right verdict was given.

I wouldn't want to repeat the experience. I had to take 2 weeks off work but the allowance from the court didn't cover my wages, I was unable to claim for the expensive city centre parking due to living on a main bus route but was unable to use the public transport due to needing to drop children off at childcare, which I also had to find last minute as we dont normally need it.

I've done it and hated every second of it.
It was a he said she said case, so no evidence only two sides of a story.
We found him not guilty.
The whole experience was completely exhausting and I would hate to do it again.

Been called twice, served once. Attempted murder

Hugely undermined any remnant of faith i had in the justice system

While we were deliberating there was a news story in which a seemingly guilty person was let off by a jury before instantly reoffending. This affected a couple of members of our jury very deeply

It's a deeply flawed system

I’ve been called and sat in an attempted murder case. So interesting and absolutely took it seriously. We found the defendant not guilty of attempted murder but guilty of GBH with intent and he got 10 years in prison. Looking back though I would have found him guilty of AM. I wonder if people’s views change as they get older or have more life experience? I was very young at the time. Would love to do it again. Nobody else I know has ever been called though!

I did it a year ago - was called before the new jurors' briefing had finished, was selected to sit, and the case lasted the full 2 weeks.

I found the whole thing fascinating - the process, the formality... every day it was like stepping out of the normal world into this bubble. They way its done, with the evidence, witnesses, cross examination, judge's summing up, and then the jury deliberations, does make me have confidence in the system. As a PP said, you are probably more likely to get an incorrect NG than an incorrect G - the judge really does emphasize the need to be 'absolutely sure'.

The case was horrendous (historic child indecent assault and rape), and I think we came to the correct verdicts.

The only thing I had strong feelings about (and I have chewed the case and the process over in my mind a LOT since) was that the defendant's life experience, his background etc., was always going to end up in the criminal justice system. It was depressing for me (a middle-class professional type with lots of opportunities and choices from day 1) to be confronted with what life can be like for some families as I very rarely come across it. Without taking away from the crime he was convicted of, I did feel sad that the system that was clobbering him now wasn't a system that was able to intervene at an earlier point to prevent it happening.

The other thing was the jury. I was foreman and we had a hugely diverse selection in every which way. But there were a couple of people who should not have been on a jury - one with offensive views on how and why girl children are sexually abused, and how they should behave afterwards (whatever you are imagining, it was worse), and one who was so incredibly naive that they thought there was no need to convict because all concerned had probably learned a lesson and they could all go away and have a beautiful life.... So, while the majority took it seriously and were normal and conscientious, I was reminded that the general public does include some very odd people who really aren't appropriate to sit on a jury. It's a good job there were 12 of us really!

I was very disillusioned when I did it. The evidence was very clear and I think we all agreed he was guilty. However a few of the jurors felt a bit sorry for him as he was young and was currently working with the disabled. I think they only agreed to go with the guilty verdict on the assumption he would likely not go to prison. He got 2 years. There were evil looks given as we were leaving.

They tried to call me. I “declined”, on account of my job. Going to keep putting it off for as long as poss.

I spend enough time in courts as it is and I know how dull it is

Regarding the PP with a jury member who didnt speak much English and didnt understand the system.
I do find it difficult to understand why jurors arent required to provide evidence that they can understand the process (cognitively and also the language used).