Done it 3 times now, first was a murder case at the old Bailey when I was 18 that lasted for 5 weeks, there were 4 defendants and they were a gang who tied a guy to a chair, stabbed him 50 odd times, then cut his head off and put it in the Thames, hands were fed to dogs and torso burnt on a rubbish tip. Declined the judges kindly offer of a look at the pictures of the head. Two other times I have been have been a bit quieter, with minor cases, plus two cases in a row where I knew someone involved and had to drop out, so plenty of time sitting around reading. At least it was a few years ago so I could make use of the smoking room. The last time I did it was on a football violence case, Luton v Watford where luton fans ran riot at watford, bizarrely the case we had was a soft watford fan arrested for trying to protect his girlfriend from a mob of luton, he got off. Most cases that reach court are pretty open and shut cases tbh, as someone else mentioned, the CPS won't take it to court unless they are pretty certain of a conviction.
Did Jury Service at the Old Bailey and a couple of times at Croydon.
Given evidence at Belmarsh and been inside Belmarsh and a few other prisons for work.
Quite enjoyed the jury service other than the waiting around. Interesting to see how it all works.
First case was a rape. Lots of legal arguement as there were two seperate accusations which the prosecution wanted heard together and the defence didn't. After lots of latin and going in and out of the court they decided to try the two cases together so was dismissed.
As you said Henry....... First case was a rape. Lots of legal arguement as there were two seperate accusations which the prosecution wanted heard together and the defence didn't. After lots of latin and going in and out of the court they decided to try the two cases together so was dismissed.......
More faith in russian roulette!..... than a fair trial I am sad to say.
[cite]Posted By: ken from bexley[/cite]As you said Henry.......
First case was a rape. Lots of legal arguement as there were two seperate accusations which the prosecution wanted heard together and the defence didn't. After lots of latin and going in and out of the court they decided to try the two cases together so was dismissed.......
More faith in russian roulette!..... than a fair trial I am sad to say.
My poor use of English. I was dismissed from the jury as a new trial was starting. Personally I think it was much fairer to hear the two cases together.
I don't think the system is perfect but I disagree that it is Russian Roulette. There are checks and balances which sometimes mean guilty people going free and weaknesses which sometimes mean innocent people going inside.
Overall I believe the system works and is broadly fair. We have jury's and free access to legal advice. All the judges I have seen have been very clear and firm on seeking justice.
I know it's at the very heart of our legal system, and is considered the 'fairest' way to judge a case, but I really can't believe that having a team of untrained civilians deciding guilt, based primarily on the persuasiveness of a legal team, is most likely to result in the 'correct' verdict.
Surely trained professionals whose job it is to sit as jurors would be a much better and fairer bet. As it stands you have a group of people, some who don't give a sh1t, some who are stupid, and some like keston! Surely that's not a recipe for a fair system. I really can't understand it with something so important.
[cite]Posted By: charltonkeston[/cite]If they get as far as a trial you can only give one verdict, guilty.
I've never been on jury, but I imagine this is exactly what you should say if you don't want to sit through a trial.
Haha, exactly!
A little too glib on my part, but as Dowman said the CPS have to have a solid chance of a conviction to proceed to trial.
The only time I was asked to jury service I was called to the Old Bailey only to have that altered to the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand.
We were to have a libel case but both sides settled prior to going to court. I never got to swear on the Bible or affirm, just wasted 4 hours of my life. A totally boring waste of time and money not to mention my employers lost time.
[cite]Posted By: Si[/cite]I know it's at the very heart of our legal system, and is considered the 'fairest' way to judge a case, but I really can't believe that having a team of untrained civilians deciding guilt, based primarily on the persuasiveness of a legal team, is most likely to result in the 'correct' verdict.
Surely trained professionals whose job it is to sit as jurors would be a much better and fairer bet. As it stands you have a group of people, some who don't give a sh1t, some who are stupid, and some like keston! Surely that's not a recipe for a fair system. I really can't understand it with something so important.
Couldn’t agree more.
I know you stopped short and didn’t call me stupid but how the hell can someone like me appear anything but stupid or disinterested when asked to sit through, in some cases, hours of complex evidence. As someone who knows his limitations I would have to be honest and let be known that I don’t understand.
[cite]Posted By: Si[/cite]I know it's at the very heart of our legal system, and is considered the 'fairest' way to judge a case, but I really can't believe that having a team of untrained civilians deciding guilt, based primarily on the persuasiveness of a legal team, is most likely to result in the 'correct' verdict.
Surely trained professionals whose job it is to sit as jurors would be a much better and fairer bet. As it stands you have a group of people, some who don't give a sh1t, some who are stupid, and some like keston! Surely that's not a recipe for a fair system. I really can't understand it with something so important.
Couldn’t agree more.
I know you stopped short and didn’t call me stupid but how the hell can someone like me appear anything but stupid or disinterested when asked to sit through, in some cases, hours of complex evidence. As someone who knows his limitations I would have to be honest and let be known that I don’t understand.
Exactly. Of course as you say, when I said stupid I wasn't referring to you at all (you were representing the 'mind already made up' category!) - but as you rightly say, if it is a task for fairly intelligent people like you and me to grapple with complex evidence, then surely it would simply be beyond some people completely! Not only would they lose interest but surely they run the risk of getting the completely wrong end of the stick.
And you can't surely account for prejudices among the jurors either; it must be impossible that subconscious or very deliberate prejudices against the accused do not influence jurors decisions in some cases.
If any of these points are true (and I believe they all must be), then the system is seriously flawed. I hope I never have to have a day in court, either side of the dock!
Good points against juries picked from the public, but if it was not the case it would be left to the government of the day to decide on jury selection and those suitable. At least the jury system takes that option away. Some trials probably do need experts though, fraud/tax evasion ones being obvious examples. But would rather we had juries than not.
I had it three bloody times before I was 25. Tempting fate here, but haven't had it since. First time was at Southwark, other two were Belmarsh. First time I had two cases, both interminably dull (penny-ante drug dealer and GBH - both guilty as sin). Second time I didn't even sit on a case - called once and then chucked out during selection because I knew the defendant from school. Third time I had a really good case - some geezer who worked for the council's traffic department was ringing his mate up when cars were being reported as abandoned so that he could get round and nick 'em before the tow lorry turned up. Might have got away with it, were it not for the fact that he did it about twenty times in a month!
All the advice given above is true - take a bloody good (and bloody long) book, make sure you take an mp3 player/walkman with you as well (the last thing you want is to sit there in the waiting room for two weeks and have to listen to the inane bollocks that passes for 'conversation' nowadays), avoid the food - Southwark was even worse than Belmarsh, and I don't suppose it's improved much over the years. Don't worry about being a foreman - I did it on the GBH case, it was a piec of piss, all you have to do is facilitate the discussions when you deliberate then tell the judge the verdict.
On the first day I'd turn up in jeans & trainers and (hopefully) once selected as a jutor I'd turn up in my every day usual whistle..........that'll show 'em !
Can't believe how many on here don't want to be called up or think the system should change so that "professional" jurors are used.
[cite]Posted By: golfaddick[/cite]Never been called - and really want to !!!!!!!!
On the first day I'd turn up in jeans & trainers and (hopefully) once selected as a jutor I'd turn up in my every day usual whistle..........that'll show 'em !
Can't believe how many on here don't want to be called up or think the system should change so that "professional" jurors are used.
from what I remember what clobber you turn up in makes no difference. I think about fourteen random names are called for a case and once in the court you are asked if you know the defendant, whether you work for the Company concerned, whether there is any other reason why you shouldn't sit on that Jury etc. One or two may drop out. Of those left, if there is more than twelve, it's normally the first twelve in that are picked and a couple may be unlucky. Something like that anyway.
As for the system, I can't think of anything fairer than having to prove your innocence to your peers. Okay some may be complex but that's life.
Comments
Given evidence at Belmarsh and been inside Belmarsh and a few other prisons for work.
Quite enjoyed the jury service other than the waiting around. Interesting to see how it all works.
First case was a rape. Lots of legal arguement as there were two seperate accusations which the prosecution wanted heard together and the defence didn't. After lots of latin and going in and out of the court they decided to try the two cases together so was dismissed.
;-)
Haha, exactly!
First case was a rape. Lots of legal arguement as there were two seperate accusations which the prosecution wanted heard together and the defence didn't. After lots of latin and going in and out of the court they decided to try the two cases together so was dismissed.......
More faith in russian roulette!..... than a fair trial I am sad to say.
My poor use of English. I was dismissed from the jury as a new trial was starting. Personally I think it was much fairer to hear the two cases together.
I don't think the system is perfect but I disagree that it is Russian Roulette. There are checks and balances which sometimes mean guilty people going free and weaknesses which sometimes mean innocent people going inside.
Overall I believe the system works and is broadly fair. We have jury's and free access to legal advice. All the judges I have seen have been very clear and firm on seeking justice.
Surely trained professionals whose job it is to sit as jurors would be a much better and fairer bet. As it stands you have a group of people, some who don't give a sh1t, some who are stupid, and some like keston! Surely that's not a recipe for a fair system. I really can't understand it with something so important.
I think I swung the case for the defence not that the person saved ever shows any thanks : - )
A little too glib on my part, but as Dowman said the CPS have to have a solid chance of a conviction to proceed to trial.
The only time I was asked to jury service I was called to the Old Bailey only to have that altered to the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand.
We were to have a libel case but both sides settled prior to going to court. I never got to swear on the Bible or affirm, just wasted 4 hours of my life. A totally boring waste of time and money not to mention my employers lost time.
Couldn’t agree more.
I know you stopped short and didn’t call me stupid but how the hell can someone like me appear anything but stupid or disinterested when asked to sit through, in some cases, hours of complex evidence. As someone who knows his limitations I would have to be honest and let be known that I don’t understand.
Exactly. Of course as you say, when I said stupid I wasn't referring to you at all (you were representing the 'mind already made up' category!) - but as you rightly say, if it is a task for fairly intelligent people like you and me to grapple with complex evidence, then surely it would simply be beyond some people completely! Not only would they lose interest but surely they run the risk of getting the completely wrong end of the stick.
And you can't surely account for prejudices among the jurors either; it must be impossible that subconscious or very deliberate prejudices against the accused do not influence jurors decisions in some cases.
If any of these points are true (and I believe they all must be), then the system is seriously flawed. I hope I never have to have a day in court, either side of the dock!
All the advice given above is true - take a bloody good (and bloody long) book, make sure you take an mp3 player/walkman with you as well (the last thing you want is to sit there in the waiting room for two weeks and have to listen to the inane bollocks that passes for 'conversation' nowadays), avoid the food - Southwark was even worse than Belmarsh, and I don't suppose it's improved much over the years. Don't worry about being a foreman - I did it on the GBH case, it was a piec of piss, all you have to do is facilitate the discussions when you deliberate then tell the judge the verdict.
On the first day I'd turn up in jeans & trainers and (hopefully) once selected as a jutor I'd turn up in my every day usual whistle..........that'll show 'em !
Can't believe how many on here don't want to be called up or think the system should change so that "professional" jurors are used.
from what I remember what clobber you turn up in makes no difference. I think about fourteen random names are called for a case and once in the court you are asked if you know the defendant, whether you work for the Company concerned, whether there is any other reason why you shouldn't sit on that Jury etc. One or two may drop out. Of those left, if there is more than twelve, it's normally the first twelve in that are picked and a couple may be unlucky. Something like that anyway.
As for the system, I can't think of anything fairer than having to prove your innocence to your peers. Okay some may be complex but that's life.