Jobs & Education4 mins ago
Jury Service
10 Answers
Got jury service coming up in January, just wanted to know if anyone knows
if you ever have to go in on a weekend?
I ask as have a separate weekend job and need to know if I should let them know?
Thanks
if you ever have to go in on a weekend?
I ask as have a separate weekend job and need to know if I should let them know?
Thanks
Answers
1 to 10 of 10
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by springbulb81. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I do not believe that jury service should be a legally-compelled requirement.
Recruitment should be a request which can be be refused without supplying reason.
It ignores various reasons like health, unrecorded predjudice or personally responsible reasons etc.
Of course you do not have to attend at the weekends despite the length of the long list of people awaiting a trial. I don't think that is sympathy for potential jurors but rather the inconvenience to judges/magistrates etc.
SIQ.
Recruitment should be a request which can be be refused without supplying reason.
It ignores various reasons like health, unrecorded predjudice or personally responsible reasons etc.
Of course you do not have to attend at the weekends despite the length of the long list of people awaiting a trial. I don't think that is sympathy for potential jurors but rather the inconvenience to judges/magistrates etc.
SIQ.
No, the Juries Act 1974 s13 expressly allows jurors to separate at any time, including when they have retired to consider their verdict. There is a list of directions in a case called R v Oliver which sets out how this is to be done and it is now a universal practice in cases which are so long or complex that the jury considering its verdict would otherwise be confined together over a weekend.
The Crown Courts do not sit at weekends. Years ago, around Cambridge, their predecessors, the Assizes and Quarter Sessions, didn't sit on Derby Day either, the Derby then being held in midweek. But Cambridge is close to Newmarket, where the event at Epsom was of very great significance. My late father sat on a jury when this happened; the defendant was kept in custody, but that probably didn't matter much!
The Crown Courts do not sit at weekends. Years ago, around Cambridge, their predecessors, the Assizes and Quarter Sessions, didn't sit on Derby Day either, the Derby then being held in midweek. But Cambridge is close to Newmarket, where the event at Epsom was of very great significance. My late father sat on a jury when this happened; the defendant was kept in custody, but that probably didn't matter much!
Dear FredPuli43,
Ty for your very detailed post. No sittings on Derby Day (Weds)? I wonder why....lol. Oh no the Derby is now at the weekend.
Of course the Newmarket meeting is important to race-goers but main races are about 2-year olds whereas the Derby is about 3-year olds who tend to go to stud. Also Derby Day is about head-dresses, terribly important to you, me and the other upper-classes of course.
Pity about the innocents languishing in the clink at that time!
Other factors that you cite are very educational, at least to me.
SIQ.
Ty for your very detailed post. No sittings on Derby Day (Weds)? I wonder why....lol. Oh no the Derby is now at the weekend.
Of course the Newmarket meeting is important to race-goers but main races are about 2-year olds whereas the Derby is about 3-year olds who tend to go to stud. Also Derby Day is about head-dresses, terribly important to you, me and the other upper-classes of course.
Pity about the innocents languishing in the clink at that time!
Other factors that you cite are very educational, at least to me.
SIQ.
Yes, m’Learned Friends like to keep somewhat agreeable hours (apologies, Fred :-)
A little more information for you, SIQ, is to remind you that, whatever might or might not happen with juries, it has no effect on whatsoever on magistrates ("...but rather the inconvenience to judges/magistrates etc. "). Trials in Magistrates’ courts do not involve a jury and the verdict is determined by the Bench of three lay Magistrates (or, occasionally, a District Judge (Magistrates’ Courts) sitting alone).
Your point regarding obligatory jury service is interesting. The alternative to the compulsory requirement arrangements which prevail at present may negate some of the advantages of jury trials. The idea is that defendants should be tried by a panel of their peers chosen at random. The danger in providing a more sympathetic system (where potential jurors can opt out at will) means that the pool from which jurors will be chosen will become somewhat skewed either by age, class or in some other way (in much the same way that arguably the lay magistracy is). Protection exists for those unable to undertake jury duty because of illness or disability and the option to delay their service is available for those with booked holidays or planned medical treatment. But little sympathy is afforded to those who seek excuse on other grounds. My own view is that that is the way it should be. Considerable notice is given and there cannot be too many people who have difficulty arranging their affairs to accommodate it. There is the danger, as you suggest, that some people may be prejudiced (either way) and may not be inclined to determine their case on the facts alone. But I believe the risk of a miscarriage of justice on this basis (there would have to be ten such people on a single jury) is minimal and is well outweighed by the advantages of the jury system.
A little more information for you, SIQ, is to remind you that, whatever might or might not happen with juries, it has no effect on whatsoever on magistrates ("...but rather the inconvenience to judges/magistrates etc. "). Trials in Magistrates’ courts do not involve a jury and the verdict is determined by the Bench of three lay Magistrates (or, occasionally, a District Judge (Magistrates’ Courts) sitting alone).
Your point regarding obligatory jury service is interesting. The alternative to the compulsory requirement arrangements which prevail at present may negate some of the advantages of jury trials. The idea is that defendants should be tried by a panel of their peers chosen at random. The danger in providing a more sympathetic system (where potential jurors can opt out at will) means that the pool from which jurors will be chosen will become somewhat skewed either by age, class or in some other way (in much the same way that arguably the lay magistracy is). Protection exists for those unable to undertake jury duty because of illness or disability and the option to delay their service is available for those with booked holidays or planned medical treatment. But little sympathy is afforded to those who seek excuse on other grounds. My own view is that that is the way it should be. Considerable notice is given and there cannot be too many people who have difficulty arranging their affairs to accommodate it. There is the danger, as you suggest, that some people may be prejudiced (either way) and may not be inclined to determine their case on the facts alone. But I believe the risk of a miscarriage of justice on this basis (there would have to be ten such people on a single jury) is minimal and is well outweighed by the advantages of the jury system.
Dear New Judge.
Ty for your contribution - very valuable.
Sorry but I knew that magistrate's courts did not involve juries - I should have used my words more carefully.
Of course I support the jury system as the fairest way for these reasons:
As you know it has been abandoned in the past to our detriment.
Notably Army courts martial especially in the 1st WW when "cowards" i.e. mentally ill were shot and disgraced.
A bit agnostic about this but Northern Ireland at the height of the most recent "troubles" - "security" or "jury-intimidation" or whatever the reasons were.
So how could we select a a fair jury in the bombings in Guildford and Birmingham when being Irish was virtually a crime in itself? All wrong judgements. Rhetorical only no need to reply. But maybe the recruitment from e.g. Canada or elsewhere. (I'm born and bred a loyal Englishman).
I really do not want to expand this topic any further than the original question but if New Judge or anyone wishes to correct (i.e. educate) me then obviously I will read all posts carefully and hopefully accept them without demur in order to end this thread.
With My Very Best Seasonal Wishes To All Contributors,
SIQ.
Ty for your contribution - very valuable.
Sorry but I knew that magistrate's courts did not involve juries - I should have used my words more carefully.
Of course I support the jury system as the fairest way for these reasons:
As you know it has been abandoned in the past to our detriment.
Notably Army courts martial especially in the 1st WW when "cowards" i.e. mentally ill were shot and disgraced.
A bit agnostic about this but Northern Ireland at the height of the most recent "troubles" - "security" or "jury-intimidation" or whatever the reasons were.
So how could we select a a fair jury in the bombings in Guildford and Birmingham when being Irish was virtually a crime in itself? All wrong judgements. Rhetorical only no need to reply. But maybe the recruitment from e.g. Canada or elsewhere. (I'm born and bred a loyal Englishman).
I really do not want to expand this topic any further than the original question but if New Judge or anyone wishes to correct (i.e. educate) me then obviously I will read all posts carefully and hopefully accept them without demur in order to end this thread.
With My Very Best Seasonal Wishes To All Contributors,
SIQ.
1 to 10 of 10
