By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
One thing worthy of note - some of my fellow jurors got right into it, even bringing in law books to read. And for some of the retired people, it seemed to give them a real purpose (plus the expenses that others have mentioned). Now, when we got near the end of the second week, the clerk came into the waiting room and said there was a case coming up that might go on for five or six weeks, so anyone who had to get back to work could opt out. He said put your hands up if you don't mind being picked for it.
So the defendent in that case would have been judged by enthusiastic volunteers, rather than by a random selection of the general population.
Expenses and piss ups aside did the experience make people believe in trial by jury more or less?
It's a difficult one. For example, we had one person on our jury who really didn't care one way or another and just wanted to get back to playing her lawn bowls. As far as she was concerned he was guilty without being any to provide anything that backed up her decision. Imagine having a jury full of people like that, you'd be fked.
Did it at Southwark many years ago. Got one case that was thrown out after a day. Sent home after first week. Boring as hell, my advice is to take a good book with you.
On bonus was that I did get to see Billy Piper in the flesh as she was going through some spat with Chris Evans at the time.
It's a difficult one. For example, we had one person on our jury who really didn't care one way or another and just wanted to get back to playing her lawn bowls. As far as she was concerned he was guilty without being any to provide anything that backed up her decision. Imagine having a jury full of people like that, you'd be fked.
Had similar on my last day. We couldn't reach a verdict and one person caved because it was Friday evening, she wanted to go out and didn't want to come back on Monday.
Expenses and piss ups aside did the experience make people believe in trial by jury more or less?
Most of the juries I was on turned out to be balanced and fair. Most people took their responsibilities seriously, whatever their political persuasions, giving the defendents a fair hearing, and usually, the benefit of the doubt. But one jury was a disgrace, packed with racists and bigots. The jury foreman announced that the defence barrister was long-winded because she was "half-Paki". Seriously. The defendent had an alibi, that he had been with his lover, and one female juror said, "Are you trying to tell me that a married woman would be going out with another man at two O'Clock in the morning? I'll never believe that."
Ive done it twice, once at the Old Bailey and at Kensington Crown Court. At the Old Bailey I had to tell the Judge, I wanted to be excused from serving in a case. Before the trial, the clerk of court, said the trial will last many months. The clerk said anyone who couldnt afford to stay away from work, that long, should tell the judge. Because I was hourly paid, I told the judge, before a packed court, I couldnt afford to serve on that jury. The old git told me off severely, I didnt mind that, but i was as nervous as fcuk anyway.
Did it once got picked every day bar the middle Friday was quite interesting . A mate was on 1 case for the whole 2 weeks a Doctor accused of sexually assaulting patients sadly none of mine were so interesting. 2 hours on one of them lawyers trying to explain to the judge and the jury what 2 and 4 prong pallets actually were. My mum once served on a Murder Case at Old Bailey and was kept in hotel throughout the month long trial for safety reasons my Dad was not best pleased
Never been since I sent in a questionaire stating that I'd like to participate in Jury Service looking forward to finding the accused guilty and sentencing him to death.
In the 80's I did jury service at Isleworth Crown Court. I was selected for three cases; Distribution of pornographic videos which involved four and a half days of watching hard core porn which had been seized in the raid on the shop. Conspiring to bring illegal drugs into the country; the defendants excuse was that he thought it was his grandmothers secret recipe cake and a kid accused of assaulting a police office at The North Star during a drugs raid. Guilty, guilty and not guilty.
Expenses and piss ups aside did the experience make people believe in trial by jury more or less?
Only did it once and it backed my view of the justice system. Neither the defence or prosecution were interested in the truth they just wanted to twist the witnesses answers to what suited their client. So I suppose letting laymen decide is the better of multiple evils.
Got called up when had just turned 18 and was still at school so got out of that one. Doing my A levels.
Second time was when I was 29 and got chosen as foreman and had to stand up and say guilty...
Felt like for a laugh saying not guilty then looking at the family and saying no only joking guilty of course but that probably end up me being sentenced to worse sentence than the offender.
Our jury was massively dominated by one incredibly vocal woman, was a sex case but the discussion and votes went through so quickly and many were influenced by the more outrageously offended. In my view it was correct but I found the whole process open to big time possibilities of injustice
Like others have said depends on characters in the twelve. Was not a perfect system by any means.
I remember our great esteemed old leader Harry Redknapp saying he was looking at 12 members on his case and stressing that they were Arsenal fans who would send him down. From what I experienced in our discussions, he would have been sent down if there had been a few football fans that felt wronged by that man !!!
But yes it's a strange and often not perfect way for justices to be seen to be served and can imagine inaccurate and inappropriate decisions are often made.
Definitely better if the decision makers heavily educated in all of the complications of law as opposed relying on twelve peoples prejudices, gut feel and sometimes just by the look of a wrong un. Dreadfully poor way to decide cases in mynown humble opinion.
Friend mine, was on a case of sexual assault but weirdly the couple were still very much together and wasted so much money, people away from their workplaces or family lives etc and the cost of all the court staff etc. Some things that go on are beyond strange !!!!
By the way the law was, the jury found the man guilty and the couple then left together as they were reconciled. Very hard to understand.
Friend mine, was on a case of sexual assault but weirdly the couple were still very much together and wasted so much money, people away from their workplaces or family lives etc and the cost of all the court staff etc. Some things that go on are beyond strange !!!!
By the way the law was, the jury found the man guilty and the couple then left together as they were reconciled. Very hard to understand.
[Post edited 8 Jun 2022 18:36]
This may have been an example of the CPS desperately trying to get a conviction for an offence where conviction numbers are low by sending a case to trial that should never have gone to Court.
Some rape trials are sent to Court despite the person making the allegation not wanting anything to do with a trial.
This may have been an example of the CPS desperately trying to get a conviction for an offence where conviction numbers are low by sending a case to trial that should never have gone to Court.
Some rape trials are sent to Court despite the person making the allegation not wanting anything to do with a trial.
[Post edited 8 Jun 2022 19:07]
That's pretty poor reason isn't it..
Some of these sexual assault cases are very difficult and sensitive but yes this particular case seems madness.
The jurors all thought it was a waste of time and money but by the letter of the law, an offence was committed and they found him guilty according to complex law.
They were married and still were and went home together but the husband now has a criminal record due to a suspended sentence and large community fine.
I’ve always wanted to do it but have never been called up
I always think I would be like Arthur Daley when he did it
And Bowles is onside, Swinburne has come rushing out of his goal , what can Bowles do here , onto the left foot no, on to the right foot
That’s there that’s two, and that’s Bowles
Brian Moore
My late father got called up to the Old Bailey. The case involved anti apartheid protests. The defendant, who is even higher profile now than he was then, was facing 6 charges. The case lasted 4 or 5 weeks. At the end, the defendant was found guilty of 1 of the 6 charges. For that he was fined £1. Costs were mot awarded against him.
God knows how much the trial cost.
Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the Earth all one’s lifetime. (Mark Twain)
Find me on twitter @derbyhoop
My late father got called up to the Old Bailey. The case involved anti apartheid protests. The defendant, who is even higher profile now than he was then, was facing 6 charges. The case lasted 4 or 5 weeks. At the end, the defendant was found guilty of 1 of the 6 charges. For that he was fined £1. Costs were mot awarded against him.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
