Discussion
I did it a couple of years ago, I mostly found it quite an interesting experience and wouldn't have a massive problem doing it again. I think a lot problem ride on how someone’s employment situation handles it.
The process itself is pretty simple, you'll go in on the first day a fill in a couple of forms - for any expenses claims mostly. There will be lots of trials going on during your two weeks and it's random who gets drawn for each one, I was sent into the second call on mine stint but some people were waiting a couple of days to get their first call. If you finish your trial before your two weeks is over you'll normally be put back into rotation for another one, However my first ended on the Wednesday of week 2 and was quite a heavy sexual abuse case so the judge gave us the last two days off so that is not a hard rule.
Once called you'll go into the court room, with more jurors than needed and then they will select the 12 from there who enter the jury box. At which point they'll read a list of names and places, in case anyone has any connection to them - obviously if you do you say and are removed from that jury at put bank into the lucky dip for another trial.
The Trial days are fairly short - 10 - 4 with an hour lunch break, you will also be in an out of the court room quite a bit - the jury must be out of the room while points of law and various other bits of admin happen. Despite them being short I found the days really quiet tiring, as when in court you're concentrating pretty hard on everything being said, Of course it's possible that because I don't have a real job and I was just given an insight into what work is like for normal people
. There was plenty of light chat banter with my fellow jurors but when actually in court it is all very serious and grave, although we had the benefit of being an old school hundred your old court room with wood panelling everywhere - like what you see on TV. That's unusual nowadays, you'll probably be a modern court room which are much less grand but also much more practical, having witnesses 100feet away across a massive room to testify is utterly daft, and the jury box was described by our judge as the least comfortable in the UK.
The process itself is pretty simple, you'll go in on the first day a fill in a couple of forms - for any expenses claims mostly. There will be lots of trials going on during your two weeks and it's random who gets drawn for each one, I was sent into the second call on mine stint but some people were waiting a couple of days to get their first call. If you finish your trial before your two weeks is over you'll normally be put back into rotation for another one, However my first ended on the Wednesday of week 2 and was quite a heavy sexual abuse case so the judge gave us the last two days off so that is not a hard rule.
Once called you'll go into the court room, with more jurors than needed and then they will select the 12 from there who enter the jury box. At which point they'll read a list of names and places, in case anyone has any connection to them - obviously if you do you say and are removed from that jury at put bank into the lucky dip for another trial.
The Trial days are fairly short - 10 - 4 with an hour lunch break, you will also be in an out of the court room quite a bit - the jury must be out of the room while points of law and various other bits of admin happen. Despite them being short I found the days really quiet tiring, as when in court you're concentrating pretty hard on everything being said, Of course it's possible that because I don't have a real job and I was just given an insight into what work is like for normal people
. There was plenty of light chat banter with my fellow jurors but when actually in court it is all very serious and grave, although we had the benefit of being an old school hundred your old court room with wood panelling everywhere - like what you see on TV. That's unusual nowadays, you'll probably be a modern court room which are much less grand but also much more practical, having witnesses 100feet away across a massive room to testify is utterly daft, and the jury box was described by our judge as the least comfortable in the UK.Edited by Dark85 on Friday 12th March 23:02
Did it a couple of years ago, found it a really rewarding and interesting experience. Would gladly do it again.
There is lots of waiting around this can be quite tedious, make sure you take a book, I am pretty sure when I did it electronic devices were not allowed.
I did 2 fairly prosaic cases, a domestic assault and theft, even that was quite difficult.
I felt that the one we found not guilty was deserving of being convicted and the one we found guilty less deserving of conviction.
There is lots of waiting around this can be quite tedious, make sure you take a book, I am pretty sure when I did it electronic devices were not allowed.
I did 2 fairly prosaic cases, a domestic assault and theft, even that was quite difficult.
I felt that the one we found not guilty was deserving of being convicted and the one we found guilty less deserving of conviction.
I had a heroin smuggling case. Was really interesting.
Tracked them from Morocco, through Spain and France to Dover in an Audi stuffed to the gills with bricks of heroin.
Guy was using his girlfriend and her kids as cover. He was Moroccan. She was Dutch. He got out at Calais and got a ferry. She went in the car on train through the tunnel. She was nicked in Dover. Him in London at the pre arranged meeting place.
The case took longer it might've done because they turned on each other. She was claiming she was a patsy while he was saying he was miles away when they arrested her so it was nothing to do with him, and so we had to unravel all that.
But it also took longer because one middle aged female juror who was devoutly religious refused to believe that any mother would use her kids as cover in something like this.
They were both found guilty in the end.
Tracked them from Morocco, through Spain and France to Dover in an Audi stuffed to the gills with bricks of heroin.
Guy was using his girlfriend and her kids as cover. He was Moroccan. She was Dutch. He got out at Calais and got a ferry. She went in the car on train through the tunnel. She was nicked in Dover. Him in London at the pre arranged meeting place.
The case took longer it might've done because they turned on each other. She was claiming she was a patsy while he was saying he was miles away when they arrested her so it was nothing to do with him, and so we had to unravel all that.
But it also took longer because one middle aged female juror who was devoutly religious refused to believe that any mother would use her kids as cover in something like this.
They were both found guilty in the end.
nikaiyo2 said:
Did it a couple of years ago, found it a really rewarding and interesting experience. Would gladly do it again.
There is lots of waiting around this can be quite tedious, make sure you take a book, I am pretty sure when I did it electronic devices were not allowed.
I did 2 fairly prosaic cases, a domestic assault and theft, even that was quite difficult.
I felt that the one we found not guilty was deserving of being convicted and the one we found guilty less deserving of conviction.
So were you in the minority, one of a least two jurors against 10 others? In both cases?There is lots of waiting around this can be quite tedious, make sure you take a book, I am pretty sure when I did it electronic devices were not allowed.
I did 2 fairly prosaic cases, a domestic assault and theft, even that was quite difficult.
I felt that the one we found not guilty was deserving of being convicted and the one we found guilty less deserving of conviction.
cherryowen said:
Has anyone else on 'ere been called up to sit on a Jury?
I've been sent a summons for Jury Service in May, and have no idea what to expect.
Any advice?
Procedures? Protocols?
I assume that, during questioning of the defendant, I can't shout "CUSTARD" at random intervals.
TIA
Have a look at court TV ch 89 freeview on Monday after 1400hrs.I've been sent a summons for Jury Service in May, and have no idea what to expect.
Any advice?
Procedures? Protocols?
I assume that, during questioning of the defendant, I can't shout "CUSTARD" at random intervals.
TIA
The jury is being selected for the George Floyd trial.
See how they do it in America.
I was completely shocked at the complete idiots that can end up on juries without vetting. I do now wonder if there is a case for at least some vetting like the American system in the UK.
Some attorneis were interviewed about jurors and what type of people end up on juries for one reason or another. One attorney said it is well known within the legal system that. 'The only people on juries are those daft enough not to be able to get out of it'.
I did it, it was interesting enough but wouldn’t want to do it again. Eye opening how rubbish the prosecutions case was and how much evidence had been not gathered or actually “lost”.
The expenses system is complete s
te. I bet the amount you’re given for lunch wouldn’t cover the cost of the judge’s starter, travel costs barely compensate for used shoe leather and it’s minimum wage compensation only for lost earnings. No wonder people try to avoid it.
The expenses system is complete s
te. I bet the amount you’re given for lunch wouldn’t cover the cost of the judge’s starter, travel costs barely compensate for used shoe leather and it’s minimum wage compensation only for lost earnings. No wonder people try to avoid it.
syl said:
I did it, it was interesting enough but wouldn’t want to do it again. Eye opening how rubbish the prosecutions case was and how much evidence had been not gathered or actually “lost”.
Having sat on the other side, actually that’s generally something that the Defence like to make out rather than being the truth. There’s so much that goes on during the closed door bits whereby evidence gets disallowed, that the juries frequently receive only a very tiny percentage of what’s known. I did it once. It was a travesty, the guy was clearly innocent but half the jury just wanted to say guilty so they could go home. The other half just didn't want to accept that the cops lied, even though there was CCTV contradicting their claims.
In the end he was wrongly convicted by a majority verdict.
In the end he was wrongly convicted by a majority verdict.
aestetix1 said:
I did it once. It was a travesty, the guy was clearly innocent but half the jury just wanted to say guilty so they could go home. The other half just didn't want to accept that the cops lied, even though there was CCTV contradicting their claims.
In the end he was wrongly convicted by a majority verdict.
I have heard jurors say 'By the time you end up in a Crown Court you are as guilty as hell regardless".In the end he was wrongly convicted by a majority verdict.
Just watch Freeview ch 89 from Monday at 1400.Court TV.
See how the Americans vet the jury beforehand.
It is a real eye opener.
kestral said:
The jury is being selected for the George Floyd trial.
See how they do it in America.
I was completely shocked at the complete idiots that can end up on juries without vetting. I do now wonder if there is a case for at least some vetting like the American system in the UK.
Just to be clear though, juries in the US aren't "vetted" as such. They are selected by each side as being the people most likely to be sympathetic to their arguments.See how they do it in America.
I was completely shocked at the complete idiots that can end up on juries without vetting. I do now wonder if there is a case for at least some vetting like the American system in the UK.
I was called for jury service at the age of 19 back in the 90s and found it an interesting experience (although spent most of my time working in the jury room on a laptop).
One case I was on was quite unpleasant however; we decided on a guilty sentence based on the evidence, but it was a tough decision to make. We knew it would have a devastating impact on the defendant and their family (resulted in a child being taken away from its mother), with quite a few jurors in tears during sentencing.
One case I was on was quite unpleasant however; we decided on a guilty sentence based on the evidence, but it was a tough decision to make. We knew it would have a devastating impact on the defendant and their family (resulted in a child being taken away from its mother), with quite a few jurors in tears during sentencing.
I've been called twice, with the last time being over 30 years ago so things might have changed 
Anything can happen - You could be sent home without attending a trial, or you could be chosen for a trial which may last a long while.
The court staff were very helpful - Listen to them.
Just go with the flow and treat it as an experience.
Anything can happen - You could be sent home without attending a trial, or you could be chosen for a trial which may last a long while.
The court staff were very helpful - Listen to them.
Just go with the flow and treat it as an experience.
I was called for Jury service earlier this year but due to work requirements abroad I was unable to do it. Wouldn't have minded doing it, but the current restrictions makes it sound a bit less appealing.
My Mrs, having done Jury service 3 years ago has just been called again. S
he's not looking too forward to it as the last time she was on a jury who found a young lad guilty of sexual assault. She didn't think he was, more a case of stupid young lad and revenge/saving face of the women. She still talks about the guilty verdict moment, as she found the breakdown of the young man quite upsetting.
My Mrs, having done Jury service 3 years ago has just been called again. S
he's not looking too forward to it as the last time she was on a jury who found a young lad guilty of sexual assault. She didn't think he was, more a case of stupid young lad and revenge/saving face of the women. She still talks about the guilty verdict moment, as she found the breakdown of the young man quite upsetting.
Uggers said:
I was called for Jury service earlier this year but due to work requirements abroad I was unable to do it. Wouldn't have minded doing it, but the current restrictions makes it sound a bit less appealing.
My Mrs, having done Jury service 3 years ago has just been called again. S
he's not looking too forward to it as the last time she was on a jury who found a young lad guilty of sexual assault. She didn't think he was, more a case of stupid young lad and revenge/saving face of the women. She still talks about the guilty verdict moment, as she found the breakdown of the young man quite upsetting.
It's these type of comments that send shivers down my spine.My Mrs, having done Jury service 3 years ago has just been called again. S
he's not looking too forward to it as the last time she was on a jury who found a young lad guilty of sexual assault. She didn't think he was, more a case of stupid young lad and revenge/saving face of the women. She still talks about the guilty verdict moment, as she found the breakdown of the young man quite upsetting.
Quote:"She did not think he was". So did she stick to her guns and refuse to say guilty?
This is the second post on here were it looks as though people on juries have just given into the majority as apposed to sticking to the oath they took!
Maybe the film 12 Angry Men should be showing in the jury selection area in all courts.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff