About ten years ago I was called for Jury Service. At that time I was running a successful company and unable to serve. Her Majesty's Court Service was kind and deferred my service. However, after ten years the deferrment expired and I was called again for Jury Service. This involved reporting to the local Crown Court and waiting in a room with a hundred other potential jurors called "Jurors in Waiting".
Occasionally a clerk would enter the room and call out fifteen names. My name was called once and I had to troupe out with my fifteen fellow potential jurors and attend court. Fifteen jurors are called but only twelve are required, the three spare jurors allow for people to drop out if they know anyone involved in the case. No-one dropped out in my case and I was one of the three jurors who were not required. I was not called again although I spent three days waiting. I was lucky, it was nearly Xmas - at other times of year I might have spent two weeks waiting.
During my waiting I read a lot but also talked to jurors who were adjourned or who had just finished their cases. Two thirds of the cases that I discussed had caused the jurors to be irritated and annoyed because they were obviously absurd. For instance, in one case the only evidence and only witnesses were the defendant and the person who had been wronged. The case came down to whether the jury believed one testimony rather than another. The juror who told me about this case said that the judge summarised this problem and dismissed the case for lack of evidence. In another case the jury had been called for three weeks whilst witnesses were sought in Scotland. When the witnesses were located it was found that their testimony did not add to the case so the judge ordered the case to be dismissed.
I have since made further enquiries of legal professionals and policemen and found that this pattern of presenting cases with little preparation and less chance of success is normal in British courts. The uncharitable suggest it is a racket amongst legal professionals to extort money for themselves, suiting ambitious prosecution managers who enjoy the power of large departments and also suiting defence solicitors and barristers who get paid whether or not there was ever a case to answer.
The system is run by interested parties and the poor people who are hauled unnecessarily in front of the courts and the jurors who waste weeks of their lives have no way to prevent these unnecessary or unprofessional prosecutions. I would suggest that cases are reviewed more professionally than at present, before they come to court, so that this wasteful practice is stopped.
On a more positive note, I was reasonably impressed by the representative nature of the people who had been called for service and by the professionalism of the people who dealt directly with the Jurors in Waiting. Incidently, if you are called for Jury Service, take plenty to read and the dress code is "smart casual" though nearer casual than smart!
Occasionally a clerk would enter the room and call out fifteen names. My name was called once and I had to troupe out with my fifteen fellow potential jurors and attend court. Fifteen jurors are called but only twelve are required, the three spare jurors allow for people to drop out if they know anyone involved in the case. No-one dropped out in my case and I was one of the three jurors who were not required. I was not called again although I spent three days waiting. I was lucky, it was nearly Xmas - at other times of year I might have spent two weeks waiting.
During my waiting I read a lot but also talked to jurors who were adjourned or who had just finished their cases. Two thirds of the cases that I discussed had caused the jurors to be irritated and annoyed because they were obviously absurd. For instance, in one case the only evidence and only witnesses were the defendant and the person who had been wronged. The case came down to whether the jury believed one testimony rather than another. The juror who told me about this case said that the judge summarised this problem and dismissed the case for lack of evidence. In another case the jury had been called for three weeks whilst witnesses were sought in Scotland. When the witnesses were located it was found that their testimony did not add to the case so the judge ordered the case to be dismissed.
I have since made further enquiries of legal professionals and policemen and found that this pattern of presenting cases with little preparation and less chance of success is normal in British courts. The uncharitable suggest it is a racket amongst legal professionals to extort money for themselves, suiting ambitious prosecution managers who enjoy the power of large departments and also suiting defence solicitors and barristers who get paid whether or not there was ever a case to answer.
The system is run by interested parties and the poor people who are hauled unnecessarily in front of the courts and the jurors who waste weeks of their lives have no way to prevent these unnecessary or unprofessional prosecutions. I would suggest that cases are reviewed more professionally than at present, before they come to court, so that this wasteful practice is stopped.
On a more positive note, I was reasonably impressed by the representative nature of the people who had been called for service and by the professionalism of the people who dealt directly with the Jurors in Waiting. Incidently, if you are called for Jury Service, take plenty to read and the dress code is "smart casual" though nearer casual than smart!
Comments