Jury service - what do I need to know?

[C1239]

I’ve been called for jury service in a couple of months time, just wondering for those of you who have done it before what would your top advice be? I’ve heard there can be some waiting around so take a book. During the two weeks if you aren’t required one day do you go to work as normal? What if you are only in court for half a day do you then go to work, do they tell you work when you are and aren’t in?!

I’m coming to the opposite view: that juries are not a useful route to justice. Most countries don’t have them, and the comments on this thread about other jurors seem to support my view. I suspect that specially trained judges would be better than juries for most charges.

This is wrong.

You do not have to be 100% certain. Being sure is not being 100% certain. This very common misconception is leading to defendants being found not guilty. So dangerous for society - and completely the fault of our legal system that people think sure = 100% certain.

It's a DM article - but whatever: Judges told to stop using 'beyond reasonable doubt' because jurors don't understand what it means | Daily Mail Online
During a trial in 2018, the compendium reveals, a jury 'asked exactly such a question' and wanted to know if the standard of proof was '100 per cent certainty' or 'beyond reasonable doubt' and, if the latter, what 'beyond reasonable doubt' actually means.
The judge told them they were 'not required to be 100 per cent certain', that 'sure and beyond reasonable doubt meant the same thing' and 'a reasonable doubt was the sort of doubt that might affect the jurors' minds if they were making decisions in matters of importance in their own affairs, their own lives'.

Having recently served as a juror, I can assure you that juries no longer function as intended. There are people who do not understand what they have been asked to do. And there are people who do understand what they have been asked to do (try the defendant based on the evidence given in court) and they won't do it.

Jury service needs stopping IMO.

I'd rather be judged on a serious offence by a completely unbiased and random selection of twelve people from all walks of life whatever their individual biases or limitations might be than a single judge. Particularly one 'specially' trained. You only have to look at the influence some lobby groups have on judicial training (looking at you Stonewall) to see what can happen.
I'll stick with Lord Denning's view that juries are 'the lamp that shows that freedom lives' thanks very much.

Sorry, Lord Devlin, not Denning. Past my bedtime.

As long as you understand that the “freedom” you speak of includes a lot of criminals being free.

I don’t think one judge should judge. I think there should be a panel, like a jury. But not a jury - instead people who are trained/qualified etc.

my take home from my jury service was that people can commit crimes and just say “it didn’t happen” or “it wasn’t me” and that they will get away with it.

Yeah I don't think there's a better system it was just pretty eye opening

The judge told them .... 'a reasonable doubt was the sort of doubt that might affect the jurors' minds if they were making decisions in matters of importance in their own affairs, their own lives'.

That's pretty much what the judge said to the jury at Harriet Vane's trial in Strong Poison:

"You may perhaps wish to hear from me exactly what is meant by those words 'reasonable doubt.' They mean, just so much doubt as you might have in every-day life about an ordinary matter of business. This is a case of murder, and it might be natural for you to think that, in such a case, the words mean more than this. But that is not so.... They only mean that the proof must be such as you would accept about a plain matter of buying and selling, or some such commonplace transaction.

I'd hate jury service and avoid it as much as I can. I'm terrible at sitting still if I know that I can't wander about.

Hi, please can I ask a question?
I appreciate that when you’re deliberating you’re not allowed out of the room, but are you actually locked in the room?
Might seem like an odd question but I get extreme claustrophobia and can’t bear to be in a place where I cannot physically leave. Would be fine knowing I have to stay In a room, but not if I was locked in. Hope that makes sense.

Something I always wonder about is how it goes with charges that depend on very intricate details like fraud or money laundering. Maybe it's not a problem in practice but I would think you need to really pay attention to understand who is guilty and who is not.

There does seem to be some evidence that juries are more likely to aquit but it's hard to know whether that is because judges are more cynical or juries more credulous

Not locked in!!! Not sure the fire regs would allow it… !

Two of the jurors on my panel had made up their minds about the guilt of the defendant before hearing any of the evidence. TBH it was the sort of case where I wondered at first how on earth I was ever going to decide whether G or NG. But the witnesses did swing it, and in the end 10 of us (vs. the 2) did bring in a NG verdict.

It was impressed on us by the judges in both cases, that if we had the slightest doubt about a defendant’s guilt, we must return a NG verdict. Must say I did find the whole process quite reassuring - better IMO to return a possibly doubtful NG, than convict someone innocent.

As a pp said, any googling of the defendant or the case is strictly prohibited. On our jury room wall was a poster about someone who had - a university lecturer, no less - who ended up in prison for 8 months for her pains.

And yes, do take a book! There were also jigsaws in our jury room - might be nice to take one.

I recently did jury service and the only waiting around was on the first day. After that, I just called the voice bank each evening to see if I was needed the next day. After 10 days my cohort was dismissed. I was never called in (though pretty much all the others were, some several times) and have not yet set foot in a courtroom.

I'm so terrified of being called up. I have inattentive ADHD and wasn't able to concentrate in school, back pain from my spinal condition that means if I sit for more than an hour without walking around I'm in agony and a v weak bladder. It honestly sounds like a nightmare. I sincerely doubt they make any kind of allowances for any of those things so I'd be a terrible juror because there's no way I'd be concentrating on anything but the pain and not pissing myself if we had to sit there all day 😬

This. And prejudice based on their own experience.

You can take book / laptop etc but you'll go through security every day.

You can go out for lunch

We were finished by 3pm each day.

The court system is slow and archaic. We once spent half a day while the ushers tried to get the dvd player to work. Then they played the wrong interviews.

I had obvious questions and was surprised the barristers didn't address them. I wasn't particularly impressed by either the defence or prosecution arguments.

I have done jury service twice, at different courts (living at different addresses) and I found the two differed in some ways, depending on the types of trial which came up.
On the second occasion, I was on the panel for a court dealing with a lot of short cases (may just have been the time when I was there) and even if all courts were in session, we would be kept until lunchtime, in case a new, short trial could begin after lunch. Sometimes, a defendant will decide at the last minute to plead guilty before the case proceeds, matters move on swiftly to sentencing, and the room is free for the next case in the afternoon.
Contrast this to somewhere like the Old Bailey, where the administrators know that a courtroom will be occupied for several weeks, and potential jurors can be sent home early, knowing that they will not be needed that day.
At one time, I was asked to call in during the morning, to see if it was necessary to come in; if they know that cases are running in all courts, no point in you going in to hang around.
Towards the end of each fortnight, the staff avoid putting you on a case which might run into the following week.
I took my knitting as well as a book, and taught a fellow juror how to knit as we sat and waited!
At the second court, potential cases for the day were posted on a noticeboard in the lobby. I had to tell one official that I had spotted a familiar name ("declaring an interest") as the defendant should not be known to you. I'd moved house, and he was an ex-pupil from where I previously lived.
You will only be kept in over lunchtime if the case has reached a crucial point, but be warned; food sent in may not suit dietary requirements. We had the offer of ham sandwiches or (ordinary) cheese sandwiches, neither of which catered for our Rastafarian juror. We managed to sustain him with bits of our own packed lunches which met "Ital" standards!

I was on the same train as the accused on day. I sent a note to the judge and they were remanded in custody and brought in a van for the rest of the trial.

Well not quite. Someone in my team was sked to do a 6 week trial, she stated she couldn't as it would impact the business and they let her off.

She got called back and forth loads, lots of waiting around to just be told to go home etc. In her second week she has now been given a 1 week trial. She worked remotely - both from the court and from home when she got sent home.

There must be more to it than that...did they threaten you in some way? Defendants can only be remanded in custody for a breach of their bail conditions, not because it's a bit awkward for a juror to spot them on the 9.17 from Stoke.

When my partner did it his work released him but weren't required to pay him - and despite him having worked for them for 15 years they didn't!!! You can claim up to £64.95 ( it goes up to 129.91 a day if it's longer than 10 days) to help cover your loss of earnings and the cost of any care or childcare outside of your usual arrangements.
Luckily he was only required for 3 days as I was on maternity leave as it didn't cover his loss of earnings.

I did it at the Old Bailey, and it was a 2-week case where the defendant had pleaded guilty to manslaughter but the prosecution was going for murder. So the facts weren't in question, which made it simpler in one way. But some of the evidence was still pretty horrible to hear.

You have a clerk who herds you up and shepherds you around - at the OB there are so many courts it looks like loads of school trips being led around!

Our judge kept the sessions quite short (in answer to the pp worrying about toilet breaks). Sometimes it felt like they'd barely got started before it was time for another break, but it definitely helped me to concentrate.

If you are genuinely unclear on something and think it's important that you understand it, jurors can pass a note to the judge via the clerk, and he or she will either clarify or ask the appropriate barrister to do so.

The point about not researching the case is really important and was one of the things I found hardest, as a lot of my work has always been research.

It definitely felt like an important thing to do, and I was pleased and surprised by how seriously all my fellow jurors took it. When you're deliberating, the judge will send a clerk in after a period to find out if you are unanimous or if youthink unanimity may be reached. After a couple of rounds, the judge will indicate willingness to accept a majority verdict. I believe this has to be 11-1 or 10-2. I suspect our judge may have accepted earlier than some might because it was Friday afternoon!

This thread is so interesting, I'd quite like to do it I think, obviously I may not feel the same if called depending on the case. Do you only get called to courts relatively close to you?

If you are called, you write back stating these things that make you unable to fulfil jury duty.

I think I was lucky with my fellow jurors; they struck me as intelligent and thoughtful and I came out with, overall, a lot of respect for them.
Apart from one youngish man who said at one point that women weren't so suited to 'certain jobs' (we were talking about sciency/techie jobs).

My other tip is that I agree with the pp who says how draining it is. One of my cases was a sexual assault one and I found it so upsetting. I think it was a combination of that and the earlyish starts/the commute (I WFH and am freelance, so don't usually have a massively rigid routine), plus the airless atmosphere of the court building, and eating rubbishy sandwiches etc, but I found myself quite tearful, forgetting my way on the tube, etc.
Having said that, I'm glad to have had the experience. It is a valuable insight into what goes on behind the scenes of all the court stuff you read and hear about.