Done it twice and found it fascinating . Second time it clashed with a holiday so they defered it and i got called back probably 7 months later to a double murder .. Lonely depressed bloke who started a fire when he fell out with some neighbours but deserved all he got which was 8 1/2 years .... I found the other jury members a good mix of society but 3 of the 12 had a minimal grasp of the English language and virtually no idea what the hell was happening within the trial . I thought it disgusting that someone with such a vague understanding of what was happening in front of them could decide the future of an individual . Then again that`s probably a good cross section of todays society ....
But as you say if they are going to have to think about some potentially complex legal issue then perhaps the system is not fit for purpose
Quite true , i`d be strongly in favour of a `professional` jury system with complex cases but this was pretty straightforward case . I think the three in question would struggle to follow an episode of Eastenders but as i also said , it`s probably a good cross section of society so maybe that`s what good about the current system ??
I would sack the whole system as its a cash cow for all the professionals involved, and we are all paying. It will never happen though cos those all sucking on it are the ones making all the rules , and telling us that our system is the envy of the world! The adversarial system is a big game for them all and not the search for truth it should be.
If you want to get off it and your called up and have to attend if called just say you know the defendant , then you cant serve ,early night . I was on one many moons back made all the nationals , eye opener too .
If you ask to defer because of a holiday they will be fine, but they ask for every date you can do in the next year and then give you a new date, which you can't defer again.
Call a police office or a court official by their first name (it doesn't have to be the correct one) & you get excused, I've seen it work here
Surely any legal system should be seen as being robust ... I know what Dickie has said about being directed by the trial judge but there is still a need for the jury to weigh the evidence and make sure the case is either proven or not ... if people (regardless of their position in the cross section of society) can't comprehend the simplest of issues then perhaps it is time to change the system to a professional one otherwise all we end up with is a greater chance of a miscarriage of justice.
Have her write back expressing her delight to finally get the chance to put some criminals behind bars as the whole system is too soft on these types.....and see what happens.
I've been called twice, deferred the service on both occasions because of holidays booked. It was without doubt the most mind numbing, poorly organised waste of time. A month's worth of tax payers covering my wage for a series of cancellations, no shows and cases abandonned due to lost (and one worrying case, 'evidence' presented from another case leading to scrapping the whole thing). When I was in the jurers rest area it was incredebly noisy from two tv blaring Jeremy Kyle, so the reading a book went by the by. I ended up being bullied into knitting 2 30cm sq for a communal blanket by a formidable WI volunteer during the time
There has to be a better system, but in reality it's probably as good as it's going to be. I was a witness in a child protection case recently and that's not a pleasant experience either, but it was thorough, fair and after months of evidence finding on the court's part, surprisingly quick in its findings. No jury just a judge.
Its for the Coroners Court that she's been summonsed , quite happy to do it just not in March or September, got a number for a real person to speak to tomorrow to see what can be done.
