Jury service expenses are ridiculous

[Dinosaurus86]

Posting here partly for traffic, partly because it is ridiculous and wondering if anyone has experience.

Have just been called for jury service. I am PT self employed. Have a one year old not in any formal childcare. I also have a just turned four year old who is in nursery for two full days and one further short one / week. The wording of my letter seems to suggest that you can get a maximum amount of £64/ day to cover both loss of earnings and additional childcare costs. Does anyone know if this is correct? Because it is less than even the full day rate for nursery before I even take any loss of earnings into account - and that is just for one child - no idea what I’d do about the younger one. We have some family but not enough to cover full time, and she isn’t used to being away from me. Not sure if I should attempt to defer or if will just have the same problems in a few months… help!!!

This is my experience of jury service too!
The concept of a fair hearing is absolute bollocks. The general public are not to be trusted with people’s lives.

Give them a phone call. Probably some idiot hasn’t read your letter properly.

I do wonder about juries - some of ours had already decided before hearing any evidence although got an earful from other jurors and others didn't take it seriously - again got an earful.

Ask to be deferred. £64 a day is a piss take. Are these 1993 rates?! Most people (before travel costs and food) will earn £100 a day minimum, (and that is minimum pay!) 8 hour day (full time) at £12.21 an hour is around £100, plus there will be food and travel costs. So where are they getting £64 from...?

Some earn much more! How the hell can they not pay minimum wage? (PLUS costs for travel and food.) This needs revising, and bringing out of the 20th century! People should be offered a minimum of £150 a day, if they are on minimum pay, and if they're on a higher wage, they get that much money.

I am so glad I have never been called for jury service. I pray I never am!

I don't understand what you are saying?

If it falls in half term, when he doesn't attend nursery, you'd presumably also not be earning during 9-5 (because you'd be looking after two children).

Its not necessary to compensate both. If you'd usually be working, its compensating you for loss of income, from which you pay your childcare as usual. If you wouldn't be working but thus have additional childcare expenses due to doing jury duty rather than caring for a child, it compensates those.

For employed people the £69 isn't taxable, so its equivalent to more like £100 pre tax, which is about minimum wage for a normal 8 hour working day.

It does seem a bit unreasonable that the £69 is taxable as business income if you are self employed.

Yes for those who are self employed it is a palaver. I was only able to do it because my boss agreed to bridge the gap between what I could claim from the court and my wages. I don’t know what I would’ve done otherwise - I was off on a 3 week trip travelling across the US the week after and was heavily relying on the final wage before I went to provide my spending money. I think I actually cried when I read the amount the court would pay, and then my employment contract clause that stated it would be unpaid from their side. I was just lucky that my pleas of financial distress were heard by a kind boss.

Another frustrating aspect is there’s a strong chance you will spend most of it sat in the communal waiting area. It can be days until you are called, or you might not be called at all. Alternatively you may be like someone I know and get stuck on it for five months. Nightmare.

I’ve been called up a few times with small kids and been deferred each time without fuss due to breastfeeding / childcare issues. A few years ago my FIL was called up around the same time as his 70th and was granted deferral as 70 is the cut off, which I found a bit annoying as a retired sound of mind person without any commitments seemed like the ideal candidate instead of calling up parents with small kids!

I deferred too or excused can’t remember. They needed me at court for 9am. Nursery opened at 8am the earliest and I couldn’t get to court on time after dropping him off. I purposely had to change my work hours to accommodate this too. No one else to drop off as my husband starts at 5am.

I'd have to defer, because I can't afford it - those expenses are less than half a days pay, but in any case, none of the local courts are wheelchair accessible enough for a disabled jury member.

Which pisses me off because I would actually love to do it and it really worries me how skewed juries end up being when you think of all the people who defer/are excused for a variety of solid reasons that COULD be eradicated by making courts more accessible and remunerating people appropriately!

We either believe that jury’s should be composed of a proper cross section of British people or we don’t.

if we do childcare should be paid for and all people should be compensated for what they actually earn. If self employed like I am I should be compensated for what I would have earned going on an average of the previous years salary. If PAYE you provide a payslip.

anyone who can’t actually get childcare should be exempt. Very few places (I don’t know of any) are going to take a kid ad hoc.

Never really considered it as I've not been called, and don't think I know anyone who has. But it seems as though our justice system is not working terribly well if we're largely excluding whole groups from partaking? So if you commit a crime, rather than be judged by a jury of your peers, you'll be judged by a jury of non-self-employed people who don't have young children or demanding jobs, who are rich enough to afford to judge you. That somehow doesn't seem right.

There's another way to get out of it. I told them I don't believe in the justice system in the uk, therefore I'd be forced to vote not guilty. Excused for life.

Its ludicrous, there's only a small pool of people who can actually afford it. It doesn't even cover min wage as expressed by pp. Your only option really is to just keep trying to defer it

I deferred for work related reasons and online you had the opportunity to set the deferral date . The latest I could defer was a full year This does then at least give you the chance to get something in place for the next year.

It is odd who is called. My partner and I, mid 50s, have never been called. Not have our siblings or their partners. If we were called,we both cross our fingers it would be me rather than him as my employer will pay but will ask you to request withdrawal from long cases; not sure how that even works?! My partner is self employed. I’m unclear on how he could
claim anything as sometimes he has contracts, sometimes not… if the call came
at the wrong time it would be hugely costly both short and long term.

I don't think they will select you if you have small children and no childcare.

Couldnt agree more.

Based on the costs and responsibilities that many people have it means that only those who dont work or dont have children/caring responsibilities are free to serve. It cuts out single parents, low earners, small business owners etc

So that isnt a full cross section of people at all and introduces all of the prejudices that certains sections of society hold. I remember reading about a rape case where the victim said that the jury who found her rapist not guilty, despite overwhelming evidence, was made up of men over the age of 60. It was some years ago now, was either in Cosmo or Marie Claire.

The problem with this you potentially don’t then have a varied jury, having people from different socio-economic backgrounds is part of balancing the jury to reflect the public. And if we say “opt in if you can afford it” it will cut a lot of people out.

I think this is a real problem with the jury system that never gets talked about. When Lammy talked about reducing jury trials a lot of people (many lawyers) were up in arms. But they know first hand how many people are excused in advance and then how many are excused by the judge when they’re called for a long trial. It means juries are disproportionately older and wealthier. Plus a sizeable number who have not been excused but know they’re losing work/money by being there and have a strong interest in getting things wrapped up quickly. Hardly 12 of one’s peers is it?

People with children under a certain age should be excused from jury duty, as they may draw a lengthy trial which may even involved being sequestered.

I had to defer twice and they stopped asking (broken leg and then pregnant). I would have quite liked to do it. My DP did it recently though. He had to work in the evenings to cover his workload.

I was called for jury service but my employers said it was inconvenient. I went along to the court and I was immediately discounted as one of the accused was an employee of the company. I was also questioned as a few months previously we'd had a police infuser questioning us about staff. I and one of the directors confirmed we'd never had an employee of that name. We had detailed records of the staff, P45's etc on file. But I had a feeling about one of the staff who modelled as a member of a senior royal. I knew he and another staff member dealt in goods and I just thought they bought cigarettes and spirits back. This staff member had a double barrelled name of his father and mother. So when in court the HMRC officer asked why I hadn't identified him I was quite truthful in that had they mentioned his modelling the royal my fellow director and I would have known who they were referring to.So of course I was let go as I wouldn't have been allowed to sit on the jury. He and his partner were convicted and had a huge fine. But it would have been a long journey daily to the court by public transport.

Or the courts provide a creche?

I really really don't want to ever be called up. I have a heart complaint (heart fips into an abnormal rhythm) that is triggered by stress/ anxiety and this is would be a huge trigger.

Bloody hell that's ridiculous!

I was called once, more than 30 years ago, and would have served only I was booked to go on a long trip overseas, so was excused that one. I was self-employed then , as now, and don't remember thinking the out of pocket cost would be intolerable. I wonder if it was as £64 then.. Probably still below my ideal day rate in 1991 but not quite so brutally...