I got called within a year of moving from France to NE Scotland..........they were obviously very short of law abiding people up there
Luckily the wife was working as a court officer in the same court I was called to, so I was excused.
So, when you decide to take an irresponsible risk of getting caught by COVID (or your loved ones through you a few days later at home during Xmas) when partying with 10, how can one trust that people in that age group can make a well-thought decision as jury member?Originally Posted by Onelasttime
Never been called in my 49 years since birth; my wife came to the UK in 2008 and has been called twice! First she appealed due to a previous commitment, the second was cancelled by court the morning of duty.
That he can't deal with the appeal himself suggests he probably isn't ready for jury service.
I believe the reports that the human brain doesn't reach maturity until around the age of 25.
That being the case I would not extend voting or jury privileges (duties) to 18 year olds, never mind younger.
I hope that extends to recruiting in the military...
A friend of mine was a MD before he turned 23...
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
The emotional thought processes and responses are trained out of them...but then not all mature at the same rate or age, thankfully
In the same boat as you, always quite fancied it personally.
They’ve been living together for however many weeks so it’s not going to make any difference if they have a party together. As long as no one else ‘pops over’ to join the fun.
Called up for jury duty once, summons came by recorded delivery, no chance of ‘I didn’t get the mail’ but turned out to be an interesting few days, it may be different here but I’m sure we’re called for a specific case rather than a fortnights chance of getting selected, been there done it now.
How would you feel if your son was the victim in the case and it couldn’t go ahead because jury duty was too much trouble for those sent the letter?
It is different in England. You are told to attend the court. Then you go through a audition and you maybe selected to sit on the jury. If not you are sent home and do it all again the next day. In theory you may never actually sit on a jury, but attendance is mandatory.
Its a fair point regarding my son, however I am sure they could find 12 people who live within 20 miles of the court, rather than selecting people living over 120 miles away.
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
Where is he on the electoral register?
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
I guess they have to choose totally impartially members of the public. I'm not sure it's the best way but it's the chosen way. I did jury service once in relation to a historic child abuse case. It absolutely beggars belief the opinions of some of the fellow jurors given the evidence. They just shouldn't have been there. Dont blame the messenger, blame the system....
Not strictly true. You attend court at the start of the day and sit in a room with loads of other potential jurors. Every now and then,depending on the cases being heard,a clerk or usher will come in and call out 15 or 16 (iirc) names who then go to the court. When in the court the names of the accused and witnesses are announced and if you have any connection to them you have to declare it;you are then dismissed. The 12 people who will form the jury are then randomly selected from those present. The remaining people return to the ‘holding area’ where they will remain until dismissed for the day. You can be called to form a jury at any time during that day and,if a case is particularly quick ,you can even be called twice in a day.
Regarding the comment about distance....it goes on electoral roll so if your son is still on your local electoral roll how are they supposed to know?
According to another thread, I believe I can say that Mick P will never be retained, then ...
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
Bottom line and end of story.
Yes, and no reply. I’m betting it’s not 120 miles away from the court.
Did jury service a few years ago.
The experience left me with zero confidence in our legal system supposedly the envy of the world.
What a joke. Mainly hanging around and wasting time. The judge was an arrogant little git and the barristers just embarked on character assassination of the people concerned. Overpaid, over-privileged and totally useless.
I have no recollection of any audition.
You are all in a holding area, the usher calls out 15 random names, and you go into court, you are told the names of the parties and have to declare if you know them or know of them.
The defense and prosecution barristers are present. 12 names are called out and sworn in to form the jury and the barristers can object to up to three jurors (which is why 15 are selected)
In practice I believe it is extremely rare for there to be any objections.
I was called onto a jury on the first day of service and the trial lasted two weeks.
I found it incredibly interesting, the barristers were very very good.
I appreciate that others have a very different experience, if they are not called and spend their time hanging round an uncomfortable place with undrinkable coffee it can't be much fun.
Some years later I spent a while as a volunteer for the Witness Service and found it very interesting and worthwhile.
The reality of the justice system, well in Scotland anyway, is that lawyers who are getting legal aid from their clients continue to push for a not guilty plea, right up to the day of the trial, then “”suggest”” it might be best for their clients to change their plea to guilty, thus making sure they maximise their fees, paying scant regard to the potential inconvenience and loss of earnings for anybody appearing to give evidence, serve on a jury etc etc
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
