Jury Service

[Yliander]

In Aus you have to be on the voting roll to be called up for jury service.

and once you are 18 or a citizen you have to be on the voting roll....

so anyone over 18 in Aus is techinally fair game for Jury duty

[John S]

Excellent advice! thanks
Did you have to 'swear in' - or whatever it's called?

Yes, in Scotland anyway - see "swearing in" on the following website:
Jury service

[Tessalicious]

stuff

Just a quick point to note - I think it is actually still illegal to discuss what happens in the jury room (see here for a bit more information), so it might be worth being a little more careful about what you write on a public forum. Barry, can you advise?

[~*~Saligal~*~]

and once you are 18 or a citizen you have to be on the voting roll....

so anyone over 18 in Aus is techinally fair game for Jury duty

It's seen as one of the obligations of civic duty - part of being in a democracy - which is why all citizens of legal voting age are required to participate.

Then again... there is the hitch that not everyone bothers to put themselves on the electoral roll when they turn 18...

[Sparkles]

OK, so I'm about to go to my thrid day of jury service. So far I have read nearly a whole book and eaten half a packet of mints (they are a life saver).
It's a bit like being back at school, listening for your name over the tannoy, having to answer your name on a register, sign in for the day and ask to be excused if you need to leave the room.

So far I have been called down to be in one jury, but out of the 15 people sent down I was one of the 3 that was not picked. Maybe today I will have something more interesting to do than sit and depress myself over my lack of success in the Telegraph cryptic crossword?!

[Barry Shnikov]

Just a quick point to note - I think it is actually still illegal to discuss what happens in the jury room (see here for a bit more information), so it might be worth being a little more careful about what you write on a public forum. Barry, can you advise?

Yes, be careful. It isn't like the US where jurors can get lucrative book deals based on their jury service.

The jury is supposed to be like a black box - nobody gets to look inside.

[StokeBloke]

I did [jury service] in the 1980's.

After your recent comments about male teachers this revelation chilled me to the core

yes I know there are plenty of counter arguements to that statement but this isn't the place for them.

On the contrary; a discussion forum where a subject is being discussed is the EXACT place

[Astro]

After your recent comments about male teachers this revelation chilled me to the core

Calm down Stokey - You only get picked for jury service once.

Anyhow I think the reaction to my question was OTT.

I wasn't making a statement of fact.

[Beowulf]

You only get picked for jury service once

No you don't .. there is always the chance that you get picked again..

[bigdjiver]

Apologies, I came to this thread late. As far as I recall we were not allowed to make notes. The first case I heard I thought the rest of the jury wimped out and picked the less serious charge to convict upon. The victim had been blinded in one eye so I was not happy with that. Having heard the level of discussion it did prepare, decades later, me for the jury's verdict when my son was the victim.

The other case I heard was "different". A guy who looked like the standard TV thug was accused of assaulting a police officer whilst he was trying to arrest his mate for attacking a shopkeeper. When the defendant recounted how much he had to drink it sounded like he could not possibly have been standing up, let alone assaulting anyone. The defendant then claimed that somebody else that he named had attacked the officer, not him. The judge enquired why this person was not being called as a witness. It transpired that this was a new allegation. The judge was about to rule on this new evidence, when the named guy stood up in the public gallery and said "Its true, I did it.". The confessor had no previous record.The judge bound over the confessor.

It seemed that the defendant was on a two year suspended sentence for a previous assault. The judge had no option but to dismiss the charges against him.
My long before school experience of a day visit to the Old Bailey had already left me cynical about the legal process, and this experience reinforced that.

I am even more cynical now.

[Astro]

No you don't .. there is always the chance that you get picked again..

I didn't know that!

Apologies, I came to this thread late. As far as I recall we were not allowed to make notes. The first case I heard I thought the rest of the jury wimped out and picked the less serious charge to convict upon. The victim had been blinded in one eye so I was not happy with that. Having heard the level of discussion it did prepare, decades later, me for the jury's verdict when my son was the victim.

Sorry to hear about your son bigdjiver.

I am even more cynical now.

Lawyers are not called sharks for nothing.
If you can't afford a very "good" lawyer then the odds are stacked against you.
Look at the retired barrister Carmen, he didn't lose hardly any of his cases.
Unfortunately it just theatre. And I mean that in a sad way.

[bigdjiver]

... If you can't afford a very "good" lawyer then the odds are stacked against you.
Look at the retired barrister Carmen, he didn't lose hardly any of his cases.
Unfortunately it just theatre. And I mean that in a sad way.

Alas I think it is worse than theatre. The police told me the defence Barrister had got a not guilty verdict for the man who pulled the trigger in a murder case, whilst his three companions had all been convicted.

Conversely the innocent sometimes go to jail. A friend of mine was convicted for conspiring to manufacture Amphetamine. He ran many small businesses and buying and selling chemicals was one. Electronics was another, which was how I met him. The chemical he bought was used in the manufacture of printed circuit boards. He claims he did not know about its use in Amphetamine production. The chemical company was supposed to warn all buyers that this was the case, but they were involved in a police sting and, for whatever reason, did not.

To make charges of conspiracy stick you need a certain number of accused. He was roped in, as was the brother of another of the gang. According to my friend the "bad" brother that was in the gang had pinched the "good" brothers notes from when he was doing his degree. They were in fact far too general to be of any use in actually producing anything, but were used by the police to rope him in. Since there was no way the good brother would cooperate in the plot and tell them how to make amphetamine the gang leader posted a very hopeful email to my friend, asking if he knew how to do it. (He did not). My innocent friend had raised no objection to the police looking at his computer as he thought he had nothing to hide. As it happened this email had arrived unseen just before the police seized the computer.

I am cynical enough to wonder if my friend was being truthful about this, but his barrister was so incensed by his conviction that he worked on his appeals at no charge. Even a cynic like me has to be impressed by that.

So all of the conspirators and the two innocents went to jail. All except, of course, the mastermind of the plot. He had one of the top barristers and a Lord as a character witness.

Allegedly a member of the defence team for the man found not guilty had boasted that the that the barrister would reduce the jury to a condition in which they could not think straight. The police were studying the jury and they said the last one "switched off" just over an hour into the defense summing up. It went on for an hour and three-quarters, twice as long as the barrister told the judge it would last. IMO opinion, given the guys experience, this estimate was a deliberate lie to the judge. If someone reduced the ability of a jury to think straight by administering drugs they could be convicted of perverting the course of justice. IMO he deliberately and with premeditation used classic Derren Brown like mind warping tricks on the jury. He seems to have beenequally adept at getting evidence ruled inamissable. One example, we were not allowed to tell the jury that my son had told my wife just before he went out that he was going to tell the two accused that he was not going to give in to their threats and commit the illegal act that they wanted him to.

I said I was cynical. Believing that a barrister has perverted the course of justice is about as cynical as it gets.

[Astro]

I said I was cynical. Believing that a barrister has perverted the course of justice is about as cynical as it gets.

It's not being cynical IMO, just realistic.

Barristers who win get a "name" which enables them to take on the most lucrative cases.

Plus they get to pick and choose.

Plus they get shed loads of money.

It's a case of winning at all costs, no ethics come into it.

The Judge is supposed to be the last bastion against sharp practice, but some of them are too old and deaf.

Or they too may fall for the Barrister's charm.

I'm sure they must have nightmares though. Say a top flight barrister manages to get a peodphile off the hook when he knows the defendant has raped 3 little girls.

The honest barristers with a personal code of ethics tend to be stuck in public defence which is not well paid (relatively).

This is because they don't win so much, because they believe in Justice.

Then you get public defence barrister's who just don't care. They get paid the same win or lose, and just want to get to the boozer, then home.

[NickC]

I sat on a jury, and was very excited at the prospect, but the reality was it was someones life I had in my hands, and the night before the end of the trial and the verdict, I got pissed out of my mind as I knew the next day I'd have breakfast and then destroy a mans future life

[bigdjiver]

I sat on a jury, and was very excited at the prospect, but the reality was it was someones life I had in my hands, and the night before the end of the trial and the verdict, I got pissed out of my mind as I knew the next day I'd have breakfast and then destroy a mans future life

Is it more likely that the man had destroyed his own life by his actions, and probably damaged others lives along the way?

Is it possible that you saved others from damage?

[rubyred]

Is it more likely that the man had destroyed his own life by his actions, and probably damaged others lives along the way?

Is it possible that you saved others from damage?

So true there are times when we have to step outside our zones of what we feel is comfortable,take responsibiltiy and make decisions that are difficult, but we have been asked as citizens to contibute to the decision making process that will ultimatley affect the justice and safety of others, including I believe, the accused and the victim. Having served on a Jury, and not at liberty to disclose what the cases were about, I felt that it was a democratic process, with people from all walks in life, and having different outlooks and perspectives, made a decision whilst looking at the evidence which was before them. The Judge of course can ultimately serve the sentence that the law sees fit to administer to the crime, so in a way the Jury's decison can inform the Judge, but she/he can make the final outcome in their judgement and sentencing.

[Sparkles]

Well, jury service for me is now over - I was put on a jury but the defendant changed her plea and so we were dismissed a jurers. I was then later called and told that I didn't have to go back in this week as they had enough jurors already - so I'm back at work.

It was interesting to see the legal proceedure in action, and to go into a court room. I'm just glad that I didn't have to witness anything too distressing, and that ultimately the burden of making the decision about that person's future was taken off my shoulders - maybe that makes me a whimp?

I was very impressed chatting with the other people that were on jury service - most of them had been educated to degree level and were feeling very conciencious about their duty at court. They all seemed to feel the weight of the decisions they made and wanted to be absolutely sure they were doing the right thing - nice to know that a fair trial really can be a fair trial in some cases (as most of the time you hear from people who feel they have been unfairly treated in some way).

[Astro]

nice to know that a fair trial really can be a fair trial in some cases (as most of the time you hear from people who feel they have been unfairly treated in some way).

I was a voluntary witness years and years ago.

The police had made up all these lies and beaten up my boyfriend.

I was shocked, wasn't sure up to that day weather I would go to the court or not, as I was worried about the police coming after me at a later date.

I couldn't very well apply for police protection from the police.

I had to sit with these other two witnesses in the lobby who were policemen for the procecution!

I got another shock when I sat down, they were all nice and smiley and how are you?

I just ignored them.

I gave my evidence and was cross examined by the procecution and defence lawyers.

There was no jury, but the Magistrate believed my testimony over the police testimony and the case was dismissed.

I said to the defence lawyer "Will the police witnesses be tried for purjury?" He said no, the court wouldn't do that.
The defendant would have to bring a case against the police.

Anyway that was a case of a fair trial.

[Isis]

Have been called for Jury Duty tomorrow - totally dreading it!

[Sparkles]

It's not all that bad - just make sure you take some mints and a good book.