YANBU jury expenses not increasing with inflation is another joy of austerity, as is the fact that in some courts, many of the staff hearing these horrible cases day in and day out are agency staff on minimum wage being carrotted along on the promise that maybe, someday, when there is budget, they too can apply for a permanent role.
Though as we've seen, part of the reason for that is that people don't want their tax money going there so it's an unpopular push to put more money into it. People want their justice as cheaply as possible and we're all paying the cost.
Juries are one of those weird things that no one ever seems to question.
People question juries a lot as noticed in this thread.
Oddly, magistrates are questioned far less, even though they're also volunteers and the entire criminal system in England relies on them (large parts of it don't rely on juries, I can't speak for other countries).
Or that the 'tough on crime' Tories sold off a bunch of court houses and refused to fund updates to courts beyond their own pet projects (I live in an English county that does not have a single disability accessible court, some cases get delayed - because the defendant uses a mobility aid that cannot be accommodated in any docks so the case has to be transferred out of area. Great for the victims who will inevitably have to travel farther)
Or anyone? Why SE more likely to be out of pocket? It’s a genuine question - not being snarky as I’ve been SE too
Some employers cover the difference or simply pay wages in full so no loss of earnings is paid by the courts, self-employed are unable to do either.
There are also some employers who continue to break the law around this with forcing people to use annual leave or refusing to allow it, as it is difficult for many to push the issue with an uncooperative employer and not all get appropriate support from the courts on this issue.
Do you get a say in which cases you're assigned to? For example, it's a trial about noncery but you were a victim of that once, and really don't want to be exposed to it again. Are you able to decline? If not, fuck that.
What happens if you’re so traumatised by DA that you hate men. So if the defendant is male, you’d vote guilty regardless?
Juries are told before being sworn in what the charges are. Some judges will directly ask on those kinds of cases if anyone feels they cannot fulfil their affirmation/oath (I usually hear it on cases with sexual violence), otherwise jurors raise their hand before swearing in if there is an issue. The latter is not always clearly explained to jurors - and many find doing it in a full court unpleasant - which is why jurors are typically given jury note paper to write notes to be able to give them to the usher who passes them on to the judge.
I have had cases of jurors ranting to others about how all men are guilty and similar, other jurors made complaint to the jury officer who was able to remove them.
Do we really want jurors to be racist misogynists with poor critical thinking skills? Can a jury with such jurors ever deliver justice?
Do you really think there are no racist misogynist judges or barristers? Or judges that are really jaded from hearing hundreds of these cases to the point that they will always assume the worst?
Personally I’m very opposed to them. The fact that I as a tax payer have to pay jury service costs, usually just to have individuals wait around for days on end, plays a part. It’s inefficient.
It may be inefficient, I can see that, but it's still probably the most efficient part of the process.
I’d like to see a much leaner court system, 1-3 judges. That way some cases actually have a chance of not being constantly postponed with everyone’s time wasted, inc witnesses, lawyers, victims and police officers. It’s you and me that pay the costs of this, but it’s much more horrific if you’re a victim of a serious crime waiting for justice for 1-2 years
Jurors are not the reason cases are being postponed 99% of the time. The only time those kinds of delays are caused by jurors is if a jury has to be discharged for jurors' breaking the rules.
We already have those leaner courts in the Magistrates and for appeals. Those rely on Magistrates, who are volunteers. There is a national shortage and unlike jurors, there is no legal requirement for anyone to sit as a Magistrate. There is also a shortage of judges and barristers and court space - fully accessible and otherwise. These are a far bigger contributors.
Along with a shortage of professionals and magistrates and court rooms (both in the lack of literal not enough court rooms and court rooms that have had to be closed due to falling into disrepair), I've known prosecutors who can fairly reliably call when a defendant will plea on day 3 of trial based on how their barrister acts - there are different fees based on how long the trial goes and yes, some barristers do play that system no matter the impact on victims. See being jaded. Oh, and those barrister go on to become judges, some already sit as part time judges, so again - how much power do we want to put in so few hands?
The Leveson Report 2025 had many recommendations for dealing with the backlog - which in some parts of the country is about 5 years for bail cases - and the putting further limits on jury trials that the government and media are so focused on was not even among the main ways for dealing with the mess the system has gotten into largely caused by cutting as much to the bone and refusing to invest. They're only focused on cutting juries as they think it'll cut costs further while initiatives like fast track courts - booking a bunch of 1-3 day trials in a set time to clear them which is actually shows strong evidence of increasing the speed in which cases resolve even with juries - gets barely a mention so won't be funded properly to get the staff needed to make them sustainable.
I went to the Clerk of the Court but they aren't allowed to hear anything jurors say. It was absolutely ridiculous and I lost all faith in the system.
It's horrible how the court handled your situation. They should have informed you and others that if any jurors on your panel or otherwise have disclosed breaking their affirmation/oath that a jury note should be given to the usher to be passed the judge or to disclose to the jury officer who can go up the chain as well. There are many ways courts can handle that kind of thing, and you did the right thing by reporting it - they failed you and everyone by not getting that reporting to the right person to deal with it. Sadly I have known some clerks who act like that, so your story and that of others doesn't surprise me - saddens yes, but not surprised.