Summons in the post this morning

[sipar69]

There are two possibilities for people who have genuine reasons - deferment and exemption. Changes in the law have meant that very few categories of people are exempt these days. Magistrates, for example, who already give a substantial amount of public service for no pay (minimum of 13 days per year, usually quite a bit more) can still be called for jury service.

 

If you were called and could convince them that it would significantly damage your business to serve at a particular time, I expect you would be able to defer to a different time. I doubt they would exempt you. Once deferred, they would probably expect you to go and make arrangements to cover whatever business obligations you have for when you are next due to serve. I guess the argument would be that juries should be as representative of the adult population as possible, so it wouldn't be desirable to allow every self employed person to be excused. Just my thinking on the logic. I work within the legal system, but I'm no expert on how the jury selection system actually operates.

Edited February 8, 2015 by sipar69

[350zedd]

I'm employed and self-employed - if I got called - no problem with the employed side of it, but it would crucify my personal business - my clients often expect a turn around within a few days.

 

How would that be seen by the courts ?

 

M'lud will look upon this unfavourably, and you should hand yourself over to the authorities immediately!

[JetSet]

I'm employed and self-employed - if I got called - no problem with the employed side of it, but it would crucify my personal business - my clients often expect a turn around within a few days.

 

How would that be seen by the courts ?

 

There's not a lot you can do really. Reading through the leaflet that Caroline has been sent, you can impress on the court that jury service longer than 2 weeks would cause you difficulties but there's no guarantee you'll be accommodated.

 

 

Pete

[techinstaller]

In principal i would agree if called it should be done willingly but i also am self employed and run 2 business .I am the sole Income with house kids wife morgage etc and i can guarentee that the damage done to the business's in 2 to 4 weeks would be non repairable the competition would clean up .

So firstly i would need to try and be excused and assume that would not be accepted but what real use would someone like me be on a jury when in person i would be present but hand on heart in all honesty would be miles away in mind thinking about my own problems with business's and probably working through the nights and weekends on a damage limitation exercise to save the business's and work.Assuming we not holed up in a hotel everynight on lockdown .

fair to say it wouldnt get my best attention rightly or wrongly its just how it is

Edited February 8, 2015 by techinstaller

[Ekona]

Just turn up on day one and say you hate black people*. You'll soon get excused.

 

 

 

*Or the Irish, or Europeans, or gay folk, or whoever.

[techinstaller]

Would i not then end up in the dock as opposed to on the jury ?

[sipar69]

In principal i would agree if called it should be done willingly but i also am self employed and run 2 business .I am the sole Income with house kids wife morgage etc and i can guarentee that the damage done to the business's in 2 to 4 weeks would be non repairable the competition would clean up .

So firstly i would need to try and be excused and assume that would not be accepted but what real use would someone like me be on a jury when in person i would be present but hand on heart in all honesty would be miles away in mind thinking about my own problems with business's and probably working through the nights and weekends on a damage limitation exercise to save the business's and work.Assuming we not holed up in a hotel everynight on lockdown .

fair to say it wouldnt get my best attention rightly or wrongly its just how it is

 

I think that's a fair point but I can see why they take such a hard line on exemptions. Look at it this way, whenever there's a horrible crime e.g. Lee Rigby, everyone's expressing their disgust but look how many people seemingly wouldn't want to give up some of their time to serve on a jury. The problem with restricting it to people who want to do it is you'd end up with the same people doing it over and over again. I do think you should be excused if it means your business would suffer badly though.

[Ekona]

Would i not then end up in the dock as opposed to on the jury ?

Unlikely. It's not actually illegal to be racist, just to do racist things.

 

I mean, I probably wouldn't state it like that, but if you said to the clerk casually, "Oh, I hope there's no cases with XYZ in it, I don't trust any of those people", then you're going to be excused pretty quickly.

[Voodoo Vix]

My brother had to do it but the case involved children, which he was dreading so he just told them he couldn't be objective in a case involving abuse of children as he had two young ones himself. He was sent home after that and never recalled.

[Rock_Steady]

I got a summons a few years ago, but I managed to get out of it, they couldn't pay as well as my job does so that was that.

[sipar69]

Isn't it a good thing to contribute something to society, even if it might be a bit uncomfortable, inconvenient etc?

 

I'd be happy to do jury service.

Edited February 10, 2015 by sipar69

[Ekona]

+1

 

I'd love to do it, I really would.

[AliveBoy]

+1

 

I'd love to do it, I really would.

 

+2, dependant on case obviously!

[Ekona]

I'd take anything, I really would. I wouldn't care how simple, or how complex, or how plain, or how evil: I'd be happy just to be involved.

[Flex]

I got called up years ago but was relocating with work, one of the few reasons not to do it.

[Fodder]

I'd take anything, I really would. I wouldn't care how simple, or how complex, or how plain, or how evil: I'd be happy just to be involved.

Be careful what you wish for. My old manager got called up in the middle of a major project and was out for months.

He didn't go into detail but I got the impression the case was quite horrific.

 

But I agree I do think everyone should do it at least once.

[Bockaaarck]

I carried out some work within the court system some time ago, both civil and criminal. I have to say it was very interesting, especially the criminal side.

 

A lot of people say they think judges are out of touch with society. I think that is certainly true in some cases. However; all judges will have started at some point as a junior barrister or even solicitor many years previously and worked their way through the judiciary.

 

Believe me, they will have encountered all walks of life from good to bad. From the very rich to the very poor. From a scrote who's been nicking stuff from old ladies, to someone who's accused of indecently assaulting their neice / nephew. They really have seen and heard it all. That doesn't mean there aren't some mistakes made and some bad apples, there always are. There's certainly no immunity to idiocy and poor judgement, but it is rare.

 

I can remember a number of very high profile cases where I was present. A nasty and very unpleasant child prostitution and assault ring, involving a large number of defendants. The case went on for months.

 

There was also a very high profile drugs case, the kind where the defendants get brought to court in a convoy. Where they had armed police with HK's and MP5 type weapons to protect the court, very nasty indeed for the jury, lots of intimidation on that one.

 

Then at one court I was present for Paul Gadd's (Gary Glitter) case. That was where he had been accused of indecent assault by a young person a number of years previously. The jury acquitted him on that charge as the evidence could not prove the case. His defence then admitted guilt on his behalf for when PC a World discovered indecent images of children on his computer. The reaction of the jury to those admissions was interesting I can tell you!

 

It's serious work and its a serious business, but its not without laughs and fun. The barristers on the whole are a great bunch, good fun, fiercely intelligent and want to do the best for their clients. The judges are again, for the most part, very good natured and pleasant people.

 

When I was there, some of the senior barristers would take bets to see if they could get a certain word in to their speech or submissions to the court. "Ok my friend, £10 if you can "roll-on-roll-off ferry" in to your submissions..."

 

I remember another case one brilliant barrister was addressing a jury in his final speach, on behalf of the defence. "Ladies and gentleman, that is the case for the defence. You have a great responsibility upon you when deliberating this case and upon that I would remind you of this. Your verdict, whatever it may be, is like an arrow shot from a bow. Once released, it can never be retracted..".

 

There were lots of other funny incidents elsewhere. One occasion when a defence witness was in the stand, being questioned by the defence council. He didn't quite get the questions the barrister was asking. The judge intervened to help the witness saying something like "...the council for the defence is asking you to clarify the following. When the accused drove the vehicle toward X, what gear was the defendant in?..." and the witness said "He was in a tracksuit, I think it was a Kappa one..."

 

This is my favourite though (name of Barrister changed!)

 

"....but these are over the counter medicines Mr Bartlett. I fail to see how they play a material part of this case?"....

 

"You're correct your honour.The prosecution case here is that the defendant had in excess of 2000 tablets which he intended to distribute."....

 

"As I have already stated Mr Bartlett, you or I could purchase this medication over the counter, it is perfectly legal to do so. What is it about the defendants possession of this medication that the prosecution deign it to be an integral part of their case and the charges brought against him?.."

 

"Your honour, you are correct, I have bought and taken this medication myself. When taken in quantities it can bring about a state of euphoria. Hence its part in the prosecution case of supplying agains the defendant."

 

"......thank you Mr Bartlett.......this 'state of euphoria' somewhat explains your submissions to me this morning..."

 

LOLs all around the courtroom :lol:

Edited February 10, 2015 by Bockaaarck

[sipar69]

Great post. I'm biased - I work at the High Court (beautiful building) and like Ekona I would be delighted to sit on any case as a juror.

 

Although the Daily Mail would have you believe otherwise we have one of, if not the, best judicial systems in the World. It's a shame that it's only ever when mistakes are made or decisions are controversial that we get to hear about it.

Edited February 10, 2015 by sipar69