Was called in late 90’s - Inner London Crown Court, Southwark - 2 cases - first was illegal immigration / identity theft, and was a slam dunk guilty (case was in the News of the World a few weeks later)
2nd was a girl who accused former boyfriend of beating her up, and stubbing out cigarette on her face - she was foul mouthed and horrible - former boyfriend, takes stand, in a suit, very polite, obviously well trained by his brief - not guilty
After we gave the verdict, we all went to pub over the road, as that was last day of our jury service - we are in pub, landlord brings over tray with 2 bottles of champagne and glasses - tells us a man has bought them for us - we look over, it’s the man we found not guilty - he comes over, says thanks etc - lady on our jury asks him ‘so we got it right then’
Never been called up, too old now, but any jury with me on would take double or treble the usual time to reach a verdict because I would want to examine in detail every word said or spoken, and every dot and comma. I also learned that jurors are allowed to ask questions, I would be asking a question every five minutes.
I would change my plea to guilty to avoid the torture.
Never been called up, too old now, but any jury with me on would take double or treble the usual time to reach a verdict because I would want to examine in detail every word said or spoken, and every dot and comma. I also learned that jurors are allowed to ask questions, I would be asking a question every five minutes.
Have done it twice, both at Woolwich.
You cannot interrupt court proceedings with questions.
What you can do is write down your question that will be passed on to the judge by the court usher. God help any jury that you ended up on.
It went on for so long that "the court had to halt for three weeks after one juror got married".
No Fraud Act offending should be in front of a jury. They're too long, too complicated and too easy for the defence to befuddle and misdirect ordinary people over.
Acts of violence, theft, etc. there's no problem with, but not fraud. This is part of the reason fraud is the most common type of offending yet is (largely) unpunished currently.
Never been called up, too old now, but any jury with me on would take double or treble the usual time to reach a verdict because I would want to examine in detail every word said or spoken, and every dot and comma. I also learned that jurors are allowed to ask questions, I would be asking a question every five minutes.
Have done it twice, both at Woolwich.
You cannot interrupt court proceedings with questions.
What you can do is write down your question that will be passed on to the judge by the court usher.
God help any jury that you ended up on.
You may be right in ‘god help’ but aren’t juries supposed to be about a broad range of people?
I remember my stint at jury service at Southwark Crown Court back in the very early '80s I think, and had a very brief brush with fame, when I found myself sitting next to Damon Hill in the jury room, and when I found out his name, rather clumsily asked " Oh any relation to Graham"?..."He's my father" came the reply, he was currently doing Motorcycle courier work to pay for his then love of Motorcycle racing, anyway a real nice guy and we sat in on a couple of cases...😎
Never been called and too old now with no previous. Many pensioner friends were called to serve as pensioners cost them very little particularly in London with freedom passes.
I've been on juries twice. First time was about 20 years ago. Did two half-day cases during the fortnight but spent most of the days sitting in the common room playing cards and jenga with the other people.
The second time was a four week murder trial. I tried to get out of it because I was very busy at work at the time but the judge only gave exemptions to self-employed people. It was quite a pleasant experience, because the other jurors were good people. We all got to know each other well, we went out to lunch as a group, and we got into the habit of taking it in turns to make cakes. We had our own little room away from the common area. At the end of the trial the judge gave us all a seven year exemption because of the length of the case and because some aspects of it were a bit gruesome.
A few years later I was called up to the coroner's court. I would quite like to have done it but I was due to go on holiday at the time so I simply used my exemption to get out of it.
Being called up seems to be quite random (which it's supposed to be, of course). I know people who have been called five or six times but no-one else in my family ever has.
Have been called 4 times, twice to Woolwich, once to Inner London Sessions once to Southwark. I was called to Southwark at the same time as Man U away. As i registered the chap doing the signing on had a Spurs tie on. Anyway asked him could i be let off so I could go to OT.
He said definitely NOT, but just to sit tight. Anyway all the cases starting that week were longer than a fortnight, and I had put can’t do anything over that. So didn’t get picked.
The time I did it an Inner London, had a proper pain in the arse wanted to be the foreman. When we came into deliberate, thought we were 12 angry men.,(and ladies).
Once he’s the head honcho we remind him we are trying a son of a drug/gangster king pin from Croydon. We then remind him that he is the one standing up to send the toe-rag away for a good while, with a suspended sentence coming into play and the inevitable sentence for the demanding money with menaces.
Done it twice, loved it. Hope I get called again sometime. Some people on the juries were very frustrating though. My second time it was a sexual assault and attempted rape of a young lad, 15. Once back in the jury room a couple of people wanted to have a vote to see where we stood, voted 9 to 3 to acquit. I was one of the three. Spent the next couple of hours trying to change the minds of the three of us so we could wrap it up and go home. One wavered but two of us stood firm. So the next day we got into serious discussions on the actual evidence, testimonies etc. After a couple of days we found him guilty by 11 to 1. Once back in court a couple of the women juries cried when his previous was read out, all he could do was smirk. Thankfully he got jail time.
If you get called, take your duty seriously and don’t allow yourself to get railroaded into making a decision to please others.
It went on for so long that "the court had to halt for three weeks after one juror got married".
No Fraud Act offending should be in front of a jury. They're too long, too complicated and too easy for the defence to befuddle and misdirect ordinary people over.
Acts of violence, theft, etc. there's no problem with, but not fraud. This is part of the reason fraud is the most common type of offending yet is (largely) unpunished currently.
It's an interesting conundrum
If you wanted a jury to understand financial misdemeanours, you'd get a jury of experienced accountants and financial professionals, but that wouldn't be 12 ordinary and varied people, and indeed there's the danger of finance professionals being more sympathetic to one of their own than a lay person. And top professionals wouldn't want to be tied up for months...
I suppose there's also the danger in such a financial case where there's one finance professional on the jury who's the only person to understand the case, and the other 11 jurors basically let that person decide for them.
Really enjoyed it and got on well with those I served alongside. One case we had involved two defendants, one of whom was clearly guilty, but for the other, who was being tried for the same offense, it was far from clear cut that he'd acted in committing the offense. He was in the vicinity, but it wasn't proven beyond doubt, to me, that he was actually present in the house at the time when the offense occurred.
I wasn't the only one who felt there was sufficient doubt for me to refuse to reach a guilty verdict and, without ten agreeing, he went for retrial. Looking back on it now, I probably called that one wrong, but no one was able to allay my concerns at the time.
I had another case which was a clear cut one with little deliberation before a verdict was reached. I found the whole experience fascinating and it made a welcome break from my helping care for elderly relatives at the time.
Really enjoyed it and got on well with those I served alongside. One case we had involved two defendants, one of whom was clearly guilty, but for the other, who was being tried for the same offense, it was far from clear cut that he'd acted in committing the offense. He was in the vicinity, but it wasn't proven beyond doubt, to me, that he was actually present in the house at the time when the offense occurred.
I wasn't the only one who felt there was sufficient doubt for me to refuse to reach a guilty verdict and, without ten agreeing, he went for retrial. Looking back on it now, I probably called that one wrong, but no one was able to allay my concerns at the time.
I had another case which was a clear cut one with little deliberation before a verdict was reached. I found the whole experience fascinating and it made a welcome break from my helping care for elderly relatives at the time.
There is no right or wrong.
You are not only judging whether you think they are guilty, it is whether it is proven beyond reasonable doubt and they clearly hadn’t with you, so you did the right thing.
Really enjoyed it and got on well with those I served alongside. One case we had involved two defendants, one of whom was clearly guilty, but for the other, who was being tried for the same offense, it was far from clear cut that he'd acted in committing the offense. He was in the vicinity, but it wasn't proven beyond doubt, to me, that he was actually present in the house at the time when the offense occurred.
I wasn't the only one who felt there was sufficient doubt for me to refuse to reach a guilty verdict and, without ten agreeing, he went for retrial. Looking back on it now, I probably called that one wrong, but no one was able to allay my concerns at the time.
I had another case which was a clear cut one with little deliberation before a verdict was reached. I found the whole experience fascinating and it made a welcome break from my helping care for elderly relatives at the time.
There is no right or wrong.
You are not only judging whether you think they are guilty, it is whether it is proven beyond reasonable doubt and they clearly hadn’t with you, so you did the right thing.
A few weeks ago, the crown court where I did jury service had an open day for the general public, where they enacted a number of mock trials to show the public (especially the children) how the court process works.
In one of these cases, the defendant was found guilty by the jury (picked from the attendees) on one count, but not guilty on another as the evidence wasn't 100% conclusive.
On a serious level, I can imagine being called up can be very interesting.
Does getting turfed out at Forest and being done for 'drunk in a sports stadium' 30 years ago exempt me from this? I hope so.
I don’t know you,@ElfsborgAddick, but I think I remember that. If I remember right you were dressed as a Teddy boy? Or am getting you mixed up with someone else?
On a serious level, I can imagine being called up can be very interesting.
Does getting turfed out at Forest and being done for 'drunk in a sports stadium' 30 years ago exempt me from this? I hope so.
I don’t know you,@ElfsborgAddick, but I think I remember that. If I remember right you were dressed as a Teddy boy? Or am getting you mixed up with someone else?
On a serious level, I can imagine being called up can be very interesting.
Does getting turfed out at Forest and being done for 'drunk in a sports stadium' 30 years ago exempt me from this? I hope so.
I don’t know you,@ElfsborgAddick, but I think I remember that. If I remember right you were dressed as a Teddy boy? Or am getting you mixed up with someone else?
On a serious level, I can imagine being called up can be very interesting.
Does getting turfed out at Forest and being done for 'drunk in a sports stadium' 30 years ago exempt me from this? I hope so.
I don’t know you,@ElfsborgAddick, but I think I remember that. If I remember right you were dressed as a Teddy boy? Or am getting you mixed up with someone else?
Comments
Based on the statistics though there is a 40% chance of being called in a lifetime, so still favourite never to be called.
2nd was a girl who accused former boyfriend of beating her up, and stubbing out cigarette on her face - she was foul mouthed and horrible - former boyfriend, takes stand, in a suit, very polite, obviously well trained by his brief - not guilty
After we gave the verdict, we all went to pub over the road, as that was last day of our jury service - we are in pub, landlord brings over tray with 2 bottles of champagne and glasses - tells us a man has bought them for us - we look over, it’s the man we found not guilty - he comes over, says thanks etc - lady on our jury asks him ‘so we got it right then’
He says ‘nah, she deserved it’ 😳
Cue tears from some of my fellow jurors ……
I got nicked a few times in my late teens and early twenties not sure if that's the reason though
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-40258980
It went on for so long that "the court had to halt for three weeks after one juror got married".
You cannot interrupt court proceedings with questions.
What you can do is write down your question that will be passed on to the judge by the court usher.
God help any jury that you ended up on.
Acts of violence, theft, etc. there's no problem with, but not fraud. This is part of the reason fraud is the most common type of offending yet is (largely) unpunished currently.
The second time was a four week murder trial. I tried to get out of it because I was very busy at work at the time but the judge only gave exemptions to self-employed people. It was quite a pleasant experience, because the other jurors were good people. We all got to know each other well, we went out to lunch as a group, and we got into the habit of taking it in turns to make cakes. We had our own little room away from the common area. At the end of the trial the judge gave us all a seven year exemption because of the length of the case and because some aspects of it were a bit gruesome.
A few years later I was called up to the coroner's court. I would quite like to have done it but I was due to go on holiday at the time so I simply used my exemption to get out of it.
Being called up seems to be quite random (which it's supposed to be, of course). I know people who have been called five or six times but no-one else in my family ever has.
The time I did it an Inner London, had a proper pain in the arse wanted to be the foreman. When we came into deliberate, thought we were 12 angry men.,(and ladies).
If you wanted a jury to understand financial misdemeanours, you'd get a jury of experienced accountants and financial professionals, but that wouldn't be 12 ordinary and varied people, and indeed there's the danger of finance professionals being more sympathetic to one of their own than a lay person. And top professionals wouldn't want to be tied up for months...
I suppose there's also the danger in such a financial case where there's one finance professional on the jury who's the only person to understand the case, and the other 11 jurors basically let that person decide for them.
I wasn't the only one who felt there was sufficient doubt for me to refuse to reach a guilty verdict and, without ten agreeing, he went for retrial. Looking back on it now, I probably called that one wrong, but no one was able to allay my concerns at the time.
I had another case which was a clear cut one with little deliberation before a verdict was reached. I found the whole experience fascinating and it made a welcome break from my helping care for elderly relatives at the time.
In one of these cases, the defendant was found guilty by the jury (picked from the attendees) on one count, but not guilty on another as the evidence wasn't 100% conclusive.
Or was that your next visit there?
Does getting turfed out at Forest and being done for 'drunk in a sports stadium' 30 years ago exempt me from this? I hope so.
You can't miss him
Found some photographic evidence @ElfsborgAddick ...😉