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!!!

Why are MNetters always baffled when they think someone has contradicted themselves? It’s never that they don’t understand, or they’re puzzled or curious. It’s always bafflement 🙄

You’d love to do JS so long as it wasn’t an upsetting case No, that’s not what I said. I said I’d love to do JS so long as it wasn’t abuse of a child. I’m quite happy with a good old fashioned bank robbery, or a murder or fraud or any one of a million other crimes. Just I think I’d really struggle with a case involving children and I have the utmost sympathy and respect for jurors who have to listen to the evidence in such cases.

but also you’ve seen that show and concluded it’s ’terrifying’ but you’d love to do it? Yes, I found it terrifying how many people were judging guilt or innocence based on their own experiences and what they would have done in a similar situation, rather than on the evidence provided.

Totally agree. I am self-employed too and did 7 days' jury service last year. I am fortunate in that my self-employment is office based type work so it just meant that after I got back from court I then had to put in a full day's work.

ALL of the other jurors (14 of them as we are in Scotland where juries are 15 not 12) were having their loss of earnings claim topped up by an employer, or were retired.

In Scotland they will not accept money as a reason for not doing it, in my experience at least. Childcare possibly although they keep sticking you back on the list to be called again in the future.

Sorry you had to go through that.

Id be doing the best to get out of it if I called.

Not having my mental health fucked up because of other people's vile and disgusting choices.

I’m not interested in doing it because I think the waiting room would be like a first class departure lounge in Dubai. I just meant that inhospitable surroundings wouldn’t put me off doing the bit I am interested in 🙄

If we seriously want trial by jury to continue, consideration needs to be given to expecting employers with x turnover, and all publicly funded employers, to pay full salary throughout the service and to reimburse the self employed in full on production of the previous year's accounts. Also, as people are now expected to be capable of paid work until 68, the age of participation, providing there is full capacity should be increased to 75. The route to my local county court is not straight forward and I would expect car parking to be reimbursed.

Also to add - things are very different in Scotland. I drove to court and could claim mileage. We were not given a food allowance but a very nice lunch from a local sandwich shop was provided in the jury room - we were not allowed to leave the court. There was a Nespreso machine and biscuits.

There is a lot of sitting around though and shuffling in and out of the court room when there's a legal point. We sat through about an hour of jury instructions from the Sheriff on day 1 of the trial, she went on and on and on and I struggled to follow all of it and I have a Masters degree. People who were not native speakers of English would struggle hugely. Our jury was very much skewed to the older and middle class. The case involved alleged domestic abuse between two young people, one of whom was a drug addict, the other a recent pregnant care leaver. None of us were "peers" of the accused or main victim, our lives were so different.

We were all glad the case fell apart after a few days - the main witness gave a totally different story on the stand to the one she'd told police at the time. A third party witness told yet another story, and the police had not record of either the 999 call she'd said she'd made, or any record of attending. So the Procurator Fiscal (prosecuting lawyer) withdrew their case and we were all sent home.

Jeez, who pissed on your chips? Baffled, curious, puzzled - take your pick. I find it inane/bizarre/obscene that someone would ‘love’ to sit on a murder trial, or anything where someone had been harmed. It’s not a television show.

And yes, it’s terrifying that random strangers make life changing decisions with zero training or accountability. No doubt they would have said they’d ‘love’ to sit on a jury. And look how terrifying they turned out to be.

Brilliantly put.

I am sorry you went through that.
I was on a murder case and the details could not have been more heartbreaking. I dreamed/had nightmares about it for years. I still think of the families involved. The emotional effect was lasting.

We had a good jury. We kept in touch for a few years - just wishing each other well at Christmas - not friendship but a sort of camaraderie because we were thrown in the deep end of a case that was supposed to be two weeks and lasted well over twice that.

I can assure you you wouldn't 'love' to sit on a jury for a murder case. It would disturb you forever.

You. You pissed on my chips. You took a couple of simple sentences and made out like I’d said the most contradictory thing ever with your faux bafflement.

Quite obviously (I thought) I would not love to hear the details of some poor sod losing their life. It didn’t occur to me anyone would think that because you’d have to be a monster to relish hearing that and we are all strangers. Stupidly, I thought that it wouldn’t need to be explained. I specified one particular crime that I thought I would be unable to cope with. That very clearly does not mean that I’d be sat there having a whale of a time listening to the details of some other horrific act of violence. Why the fuck would that even enter your head?

What I would ‘love’ is to see all aspects of the judicial process and be able to see it from day one, right through to the verdict, while still getting paid for it and not having to use up any annual leave for it. It is the legal process that I would like to see, not the details of people being hurt. I don’t understand why you’d try and turn a couple of innocent comments into some macabre fascination with violence.

if you’re interested in the ‘judicial process’ read up on it, go and watch a trial - it’s all open to you to do so. And very possibly you’ll see more by sitting in the public gallery because there will be legal argument that the jury are not permitted to hear. As has been clear form the outset, juries aren’t paid for their task, and many people barely cover expenses. It’s a grim and boring process and a jury don’t see all the judicial procsss anyway.

You’re demonstrating exactly why juries are a terrible idea. It’s not a fascinating fortnight out without having to use annual leave, it’s a huge decision affecting the lives of one or more people forever. It shouldn’t be in the hands of some people who have never seen or understood the process.

You want to be tried by people you approve of then? The jury I was on, referred to earlier as a historical sexual abuse case, was a very broad cross section though none of the characteristics you mention were apparent, but they were as bad in that they allowed their own prejudices relating to the nature of the alleged crimes to influence their decisions. No amount of saying that they were not trying Saville or Harris changed them, he was guilty because of the nature of his alleged offences.

In England the age limit already is 75. My dad did it last month at age 74 and another juror was 72. Although you can ask to be excused if you are over 71.

Edit: Sorry that was in reply to @RosesAndHellebores

🤦‍♀️ I do not have the patience to deal with someone who can’t be bothered to read and digest an entire post, so I’m going to follow the path of least resistance.

You are absolutely right in all respects. I take back everything I said. Have an evening.

When I did Jury service two of the jurors said they wouldn't find the defendant guilty because they fancied his barrister and wanted him to 'win'. They wouldn't budge.

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.

I was using those characteristics as an example. I could equally add people who are unable to understand they aren’t trying Jimmy Savile to my list of people unsuitable for jury service.

I’m also not saying I would be suitable. I do have critical thinking skills, but I’m not very patient, and I undoubtedly have unconscious biases.

Regard of which people you approve of, you surely wouldn’t be happy for a rapist to be tried by a misogynist, or a Black woman to be tried by a racist?

That’s horrendous.

When I did jury service and my DD was very small but not in nursery, I was not eligible to claim any money for childcare that I only needed because I was on jury service.
However, I could have claimed for a dog walker if I had a dog that needed care during the day.
I had already deferred my service from 18 months earlier when DD was an exclusively breastfed newborn and was told I couldn't defer again.

The limit is your 76th birthday, I was 75 and a month off my 76th birthday when I did it! It was like being back at work for a couple of weeks, getting up at silly o'clock and driving 45 minutes into the city with the crazy Christmas traffic, then 45 minutes back in the dark, I finished my 2 weeks stint on Dec 22nd!

You don’t HAVE to do it if it means your children aren’t going to be taken care of adequately

I vehemently hope you never get called, you seem extremely under qualified.

OMG I hadn't realised it was this bad.

Sincerely hoping I don't get called until I retire then cos it'd take me more than 10 days of expenses to claw back 1 days pay let alone anything else...

Def defer.

Bloody hell you’re persistent!

What is it you need from me to get you to stop talking to me? Is it the last word? If that’s what you want, and it makes you feel better, have it on me. Give me your parting shot and I promise I won’t reply.

I agree with everyone who says that the system needs reform.
I was selected for jury service about four years ago. I was called out on the first day and spent over three weeks on two different trials.
On the first, despite clear clear evidence of guilt, there were a couple of jurors who could not bring themselves to agree that guilt and refused to give reasons to the other jurors as to why not.
Jury nullification is a real thing. And I have no doubt it goes both ways.

You must write to the court and ask to be deferred, as you do not have child care. Courts are understanding these days, but you must get in contact with them ASAP...Good luck