Jury service, your verdict.
"I still can't get some of the evidence out of my head, six months on."
"I found most days emotionally draining, but always very rewarding."
"It was a shock to me to see grown men unable to read or write."
"Serving on a jury renewed my faith in the legal system."
Those are some of your views on jury service - thanks for all your comments and emails.
It's rare for us to be required to carry out a public duty, especially now that National Service has gone.
Many of you wrote that jury service showed you a side of the UK that you never knew existed. You said it gave you an insight into the lives of people you would otherwise never have met. Some of you found this experience disturbing, others saw it as valuable.
Do you feel that jury service made you a better, more optimistic citizen? Or did you leave court a less trusting or certain individual? Comment below or email us. Please be extra careful if you leave a comment on the blog that you don't compromise the secrecy of the jury room. We are not looking for details of the case.
"Section 8 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 provides that it is a contempt of court punishable with a fine or imprisonment for a juror to disclose to any person any particulars of statements made, opinions expressed, arguments advanced or votes cast by members of the jury in the course of their deliberations in any legal proceedings."
Email us
Our Twitter
Join our Facebook group
Listen to iPM
Technorati
Google
Ice Rocket
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~44~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
It is a criminal offence to discuss the details of jury service. Jurors are told this clearly in the document they are given at the start of jury service.I don't happen to agree with this - I think we would benefit from being able to do post-trial research on how juries function, but there it is. I suggest you reconsider the ambit of this blog.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I'm currently on Jury service, and feel that there is a lot of being sent out while the "clever people" discuss things that we shouldn't be bothering our pretty little heads about. If the judge could say something like, this is very boriing, technical and won't actually affect anything, it would mollify us. As a group we were also surprised that our names were read aloud when we were sworn in. It is a very local case and it's not beyond the wit of anyone to google us to find out more about us.
Complain about this comment
I have attended jury service twice. Once acting as the foreman of the jury. I found that a lot of time was wasted especially when the defendant changes their mind and pleads guilty just before the case commences. This means that jury members have to hang around for another case or be sent home. The system, is though, I feel better than any other option open to us as it is fair and transparent. The whole experience was uplifting and made me feel that I had done something worthwhile for my local community.
Complain about this comment
About 10 years ago I served on a jury at the Old Bailey. The jury was a balanced cross section of society with regard to age, sex, class and race. What impressed me was that nearly everyone had useful insights to offer to our deliberations and, with one possible exception, everyone took their duties seriously. In addition, members were good at distinguishing between facts and feelings and did not allow their feelings to sway their judgement unless they were supported by evidence.
I was less impressed to discover that I had been appointed Chairman by the other jurors (without my participating in the decision) on the grounds that I "spoke posh", which I do not - just good old fashioned RP.
Complain about this comment
I have in the last 10 years been called to do jury service twice , sitting in on four cases ranging from rape to attempted murder, I have been law abiding, well behaved and have never been in trouble and found the whole process enlightening and informative, However the costs to the country as a whole is beyond belief to gain justice on some things where common sense should have prevailed, A real fast track legal system should be made to work as these things take months to go to court and some fall at the first hurdle taking up costly court time and costing us the tax payers a small fortune!
I did come away the second time feeling that some of my fellow jurors were not able to see right from wrong and should not have been there deciding on someones future/freedom, I did also feel uncomfortable with some of the thought processes they were following , and they seemingly followed the loudest voice who had an opinion , after failing to come to any conclusion for them selves I did at that point feel professional jurors should be seriously looked at for the future state system, However should this ever be discussed it would be a major upheavel to the legal system in our country .
Complain about this comment
I served on a jury a couple of years ago and heard three cases. In each instance I was impressed by the obvious attempt to give the defendant every opportunity to defend his position and with silk on each occasion.
However, I have to say that as someone who has been fortunate enough to have a good education I found that some of the jurors were almost incapable of reasoned argument and prejudiced – both ways – to the extent that were it not for the fact that the Judge eventually accepted a majority verdict the accused would have been found not guilty. In one case two ladies were adamant that there was insufficient evidence and considered the accused to be of good character “and most unlikely to have committed this sort of crime”
As Chairman on this occasion I reminded them that they had to base their decision on the evidence heard in court and not on personal opinions. When the accused was eventually found guilty and his previous convictions were read out – of which there were many and equally as serious - one of the ladies left the courtroom in tears and apologised to me for being such a fool. Although I told her that she had reached her decision based on her judgment and should think nothing more of it she remained inconsolable.
In my view the system is very much biased to giving the accused every opportunity to defend himself – as it should be – but it is quite clear that some cases, for example where they may involve racial or religious issues – could well be adjudged on inappropriate principles.
Complain about this comment
Court 1 ,Old Bailey,
Recently I was a juror for a six week murder trial and found the experience exhausting but fascinating and felt privileged to have been asked to participate in our country's judicial system. No where else is the workings of a democracy so transparent and justice so clearly available to all. The five defendants had brilliant and dedicated legal teams , (something they seemed to take completely for granted) for a case that had been going on for 2 years.
I was impressed but also found it sad that most of the cases at the Old Bailey involved inter gang shootings over petty squabbles. My fellow jurors,from all walks of life, were fantastic and all took the case very seriously.We ploughed through thousands of documents to reach the right desicion.
Complain about this comment
As you'll have noticed, some of your comments have been removed. There are very strict rules about revealing the deliberations of a jury. Having taken legal advice, we were concerned that some detailed references to your discussions in the jury room were at risk of being in contempt of court.
We do really appreciate the time you devoted to leaving a comment on this site, but this is a very tricky topic to deal with.
Ryan (this week's editor)
Complain about this comment
One of the things that struck me forcibly about jury service was the way that as soon as you walk into that court on the first day and hand over your juror number, your life is completely out of your control.
You get told to sit and wait ... and sit and wait ... and eventually you are randomly selected for a case (or not, so you go back and wait again..), then you are selected again (or not) when you are sworn in. Then you get told when to go out of the court, come back into the court, when to go to lunch, when to come back from lunch, when to go home for the day and what time to come back the next. You're almost told when to go to the toilet - in fact you have to go when you don't want to, in case you get stuck for hours in court. Sometimes you even get told by the judge to find the defendant not guilty (for technical reasons).
There are very few circumstances in life when it's so not under your own control. And then suddenly it's time for a verdict and you are given this huge responsibility for and control over someone else's life.
It's fascinating to watch your own reaction to these incredible leaps from one end of the freedom spectrum to the other - and to watch how other people react. Some are like caged animals, unable to bear the uncertainty of not knowing, and boredom of just waiting, while others happily read, sleep, laugh or talk and relish the frisson of hearing those names called out ... are you going to be one of them?
Likewise it's interesting to see the reactions of people in the jury room - the different ways they participate, the way they make their decisions and react to this ultimate responsibility of finally, finally taking control and making that choice.
Complain about this comment
I did jury service three years ago. By luck the jury selected was a good cross section of race, gender, education and incomes. After two weeks of testimony - often harrowing - and two days of heated deliberation we delivered our verdict.
There should be more studies of how juries work and the ways (for good or bad) that jurors influence each other.
After all the evidence, the jury was 50/50 and after a day and asking for clarifications, we still had three holdouts which everyone else thought were being unreasonable. Apparently our shouting could be heard outside the jury room!
I see jury service as a civic duty but a complaint I had was the financial cost to me (I was self-employed) and the bureaucracy in claiming back travel expenses and the meal allowance.
I feel the HM Court Service should pay jurors or compensate employers out of NI deductions as I know of many able people who will try every trick in the book to get out of jury service.
Judging (admittedly from first appearence) from the pool of other jurors waiting to be selected and my own experience; the ablest people in our society can avoid jury service if they want.
I suspect a disproportionate number of unemployed and govt. employees and teachers and postmen are selected for jury service - although HMCS say it's totally at random - because their employers pay for jury service or they don't have grounds to refuse.
Jury service is very boring. Crucial bit of advice is bring a book as no electronic diversions are allowed.
Some people on my jury plainly found it hard to pay attention to all the testimony and understand the finer points of law. During deliberations, I thought the most theatrical defence and prosecution arguments were better remembered by the jury more than the facts of the evidence, which shows how barristers influence their clients' case.
Some of the courts provide very poor facilities. In Ipswich there is a good cafe for the jurors and you are kept sequestered. In Bury St. Edmunds the jury room is cramped and you are let out to find your lunch in the high street where you might find yourself standing behind a defendant or witness in Costa, as I did.
Complain about this comment
I found that the one fortnight's-worth of jury service which I have done (some years ago) was a valuable piece of education and personal development. Being voted in as chairman twice by two separate groups of people (I'm still not sure why) gave me a lot of confidence in my own ability to reason. However, having been through the process, I think that a professional chairman - not necessarily with any legal qualifications, just an adequate level of common sense - would provide a degree of moderation between jurors with a "hang 'em all, if they're here they must be guilty" mentality and those to whom finding the court was a major mental obstacle.
Complain about this comment
I sat on a jury at the Old Bailey some 20 years. It was both interesting and insightful.
But afterwards I changed my mind as I spoke with my brother who is a barrister.
The appallingly low regard the legal profession hold for jurors coupled with the tricks they use to win their case makes me wonder why we (the jury) took it all so seriously. I'd also say that the jargon and ritual used within the court room distance the jury so dramatically that far from doing a 'good' job, we're doing what we're (implicitely) instructed to do, and no more.
I'd like to see a reasoned debate and examine how other non-jury based countries do it.
Complain about this comment
Because of the tv generation and people trying to predict what happens before it happens,Jurys could be deemed unfair to remedy this maybe jurys should be tested before being enrolled so that the system is protected from people who may not be taking there job as seriously as they should.
Maybe the test should involve fictional case studys set up to test whether that person looks at the evidence first before applying there own opinion on it.
Complain about this comment
My experience of jury service was that some of the jurors were not at all objective ie two of the more vocal ones were agreeing that 'This won't take us long at all. You've only got to look at him to see he's guilty' etc. I think that jurors do a good job in the main, but that it would be safer if all jurors received some training even if only in the form of a video of how to examine the evidence and how not be swayed by someone's background or the way someone looks.
Complain about this comment
After reading all the blog comments about the Jury Service, I further feel compelled to question whether there should be a Jury service.
After testifying at Crown Court last year against a man I knew was guilty, I knew because I was the victim. I was shocked and speechless that the Jury acquitted him. There was sufficient evidence and witness etc. to convict him. After all, evidence has to be beyond all reasonable doubt to reach Crown Court. (no smoke without fire bla bla)
I thank the police and CPS for their hard work in putting the case together but am absolutely spellbounded that the Jury came to such a conclusion. Either they were deliberatly mislead or what I don't know. But Jury acquitting a guilty person is a crime in itself and I now have no faith in the English legal system what so ever.
Complain about this comment
I recently served my term and agree totally with LizAlder in terms of jurors apparently pre-judging the case.
When you're first sworn in you're asked whether or not there are reasons why you should not serve on that jury, the examples we were given were, being a prior victim of a similar offence, or knowing someone in the courtroom.
If these are perfectly legitimate reasons why a juror might be exempted, then one wonders why this one doesn't (according to the advice I got) appear to qualify on the same grounds:
"I've just finished deliberating on an almost identical case, and the evidence was so distressing / the deliberations process was so hellish, that I simply cannot cope with having to do it all over again so soon".
In any case involving distressing accusations or evidence, it is entirely understandable that a minority of people will seek to avoid having to dwell on the case in any great detail - this could mean anything from caving into the majority view in order to reach a quick verdict, to forming an early conclusion and then refusing completely to even discuss it.
Trouble is, a juror is not expected to serve his or her own self-interest; they're there to consider the evidence. Even if they'd rather scrape their own eyeballs out.
This does pose a conundrum: what can a juror do if this situation comes to light during the deliberations? What should he do?
You cannot approach the court official during this stage, without your fellow jurors knowing about it. You risk contempt of court by even attempting to do so.
Also, it's entirely possible that while you disagree with those people's positions, or their attitudes, you may still sympathise with them. Under what conditions, would you be prepared to see them charged with that offence?
I would love for our judicial system to consider whether or not there are things that can be done to make the system fairer to jurors than it currently is.
But the current system doesn't allow us to do that, because it won't allow us to talk about our experiences.
Complain about this comment
I have to say that my experience was very similar to that expressed by BARNABAS, in that the quality of the judgements of most of the jurors was poor and biased. In my case, however, a strong-minded foreman persuaded the majority to acquit - which they did - by a series of assertions not based on the evidence. The judge, after the case, allowed the prosecution to indicate most clearly that the defendant was currently facing a significant number of other, similar , offences and was awaiting sentencing on still more.
The result for me is that I do not think that the jury system is capable of delivering the level of justice that most people want.
Complain about this comment
I'd love comments on this. I was stunned to read in my local paper that a defence barrister had told the jury that I was the person who had made "the official complaint" about her client. I sat reading this in my kitchen thinking, "This is nuts. I didn't!" The defence "worked," it appears, at least in part (if not wholly) because the barrister made this claim. The jury acquitted the defendant. Who checks that what the jury is told is correct, about stuff as fundamental as to who made statements to the police? Bewildering. I have made a complaint to the Bar Council, as you will understand.
Complain about this comment
I served on a jury and - contrary to my expectations and many of the experiences posted here - it was almost an model of how jury should run: everyone (bar one) was intelligent, reasonable and collectively we weighed up the evidence and the arguments very thoroughly, discounting most the barristers' theatrical tricks pretty quickly. Although it was true that 4-5 assertive and/or well educated people tended to lead the discussion with others following - and some people stuck to a view pretty consistently without shifting at all - everyone was involved in what became a genuinely collective decision, and the atmosphere was calm and reasonable throughout
The difficulty, despite this fairly exemplory process, was that the evidence - about a crime committed in public, partly caught on CCTV and taking place in perhaps 2-3 minutes - was limited and ambiguous and in the end we knew however much we discussed we would not get to the truth. Although many of us thought the defendent was probably guilty, we felt there was sufficient doubt (just) that he should be acquitted and this we did. The judge had told us in a rather vague summing up that we should be 'certain' of the defendent's guilt (no mention of the famous 'beyond reasonable doubt' formula) and we weren't.
Although I was extremely impressed with many of my fellow juror and the way the system worked in our case, which very much exceeded my expectations, and I thought we did an excellent job and probably made the "right" decision legally, I was left with a lingering feeling of dissatisfaction about the uncertainties of the case.
I wish in hindsight that we had had clearer guidence on the standard of proof to apply and had had the possibility of a Scottish style "not proven" verdict.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS