Jury service

I've done it twice and twice I've been out of pocket (it didn't cover my childcare) but it was really interesting and I'm glad I did it. Take a packed lunch is my best advice because the expenses barely covers a sandwich. I had a longish fraud case (over two weeks) the first time (went for a retrial) and cases of theft and handling stolen goods for the second stint a few years later.
My daughter did it too but found it quite harrowing (a really nasty GBH on a pregnant woman). She went back for the sentencing which helped her. He had loads of previous convictions for violent offences (which she didn't know before but came as no surprise) and got a long sentence.

I got deferred because if child care issues but got recalled a few months later and had to attend. I was able to claim for child care.

Totally wrong. Even if people can afford to lose it, why should they have to?
I personally think the whole system needs reformed. And I think the government has a damn cheek to compel some people to lose money doing their duty.

I think it is the duty of all to give up a little time as people usually only get selected once or twice in a lifetime

Very easy to say when you have a mortgage to pay and a family to keep on less than half of your normal weekly wage newnanny. The person I wrote the letter for lives on a knife edge financially anyway and could not do without a penny of their normal weekly income.

I agree childcare should be paid at full rate with receipt for payment made. I understand £65 would not compensate a person for their time but that is the same for everyone and I don't know where they get that figure from. If everyone refused to sit them we would not have the choice of trial by jury. I think it is the duty of all to give up a little time as people usually only get selected once or twice in a lifetime.

What isn't fair newnanny is that a £65 does not cover the working day for someone who works a 12 hour shift x 3 days per week and can only claim 3 x £65 (slightly less actually) . Childcare for those who need it should be paid at the full cost.

@gillybob

If a person was at work then they would not be at home with a child. You can claim either one or the other: if at work and have to do jury service then loss of earnings, if at home looking after a child and have to do jury service then childcare. Surely that is fair.

My post said I dont think jury service is a good idea. I should have said jury system.

Legs55 I know how juries work. My point is you need a degree of intelligence to be part of a jury and do the job properly. You must be able to follow the case in court, understand everything and reason together with the other jurors.

My husband did jury service a couple of years ago. He was told the case could run for more than ten weeks. As a self-employed builder working entirely on his own, he would have had no business to come back to if he took an open-ended break of 10 plus weeks. He explained this to the relevant person at the court and they were really helpful. They put him on a case that was due to end in three weeks. It lasted about 2.5 weeks and he spent a lot of the time just waiting to be called and actually did very little jury service.

I think folks should be excused for whatever reason. Thinking it’s possible to just effectively “dump” young children on strangers beggars belief. And NO-ONE should be out of pocket at all.

l did Jury Service 20 years ago, I was called to the Old Bailey despite living in Middlesex (Surrey) one of the last to be called from that distance. It was an experience sitting in No1 Court for the Induction. Not called 1st day, however on 2nd day I was selected to go to the Royal Courts of Justice (High Court) on the Strand.

I sat on a Libel Case, Civil rather than Criminal Law. Very interesting & we were a complete mix of ages & occupations. I loved it . I would however ask for an exemption now due to health issues.

Not sure what your point is annepl, part of serving on a Jury is to discuss the case with other Jurors but not with any-one else

What if a number of those chosen can't follow what is happening and discuss it logically with other jurors?

That would be a hard one to justify annepl. Who's to say who is capable. I did jury service last year. Not needed first day but then did rest of the 2 week block. Two self-employed people there and they lost a lot of money. There's a limited amount they can claim for. We got back travelling expenses and lunch allowance.

I don't actually think jury service is a good idea. No proof of capability to make a reasoned decision is required.

Hi NotSpaghetti yeah...I hadn't really thought this through. I wasn't meaning same people all the time I was more thinking of the fact it made my mum ill!!! So people shouldn't be forced to do it! But thinking about it if she had said so, then maybe she would have been excused? Ignore my post lol Not sure what the answer is t.b.h. I would actually like to have the opportunity now but when I was called I couldn't.

At the end of the week there were a number of older people who wanted to volunteer to do it regularly. They enjoyed the company so much

When I did jury service I enjoyed it. Although there were a couple of young people, who had made friends with each other, male and female. They did not want to be left in the room to make a decision as we were only given sandwiches for lunch. So they just wanted to say Not Guilty without any discussion.

I did jury service and the judge asked if anyone felt they couldn't do it as it was expected to be a 3 week trial. Several jurors said it would be difficult to take that long off work and were excused.

I have recently done jury service for a second time and found it so interesting that I wouldn’t have wanted to miss it. Public sector staff do get paid but the senior nurse on our jury didn’t and had to claim through the court which was far short of he salary. My group was a good cross section of society and I didn’t hear anyone moaning about i5 being unfair. In fact generally folk seemed proud to have had the opportunity. We did get £5 day for lunch but had to pay for drinks in the court.

Vivian123 you reminded me of a friend who got her daughter to write a letter to say that her mother was looking forward to Jury service but she was worried about it as mother's memory was so bad. She got away with it. I actually enjoyed doing it once I got there.

Back in the 70's I worked in a council nursery which took children of working single parents in all day,the charge to them was minimal. One week we were told we had to accommodate a six week old baby and a two year old child as the mother ( not a single parent) was going on jury duty and had no childcare. This was particularly cruel for both the children and the mother. The two year old cried all day everyday and the baby was very hard to settle as they hadn't had that breaking in period where we took them for an hour or two to get used to being with strangers. The mother was distraught at having to leave her children. Serving on a jury should not cost anyone any money and should not upset children having to be left with strangers. There is so much faffing around in courts that the court case could be over in half the time. I'm so glad I'm now exempt through health reasons.

I did jury service twice and loved it. Wish you could volunteer for it - though could see why that would not work. Mind you some of the other jurors were very strange and I wouldn’t have wanted them responsible for my future!

When I was called, I informed them that I was looking forward to attending, so that I could find the criminals guilty. I pointed out that I thought that far too many were being found not guilty, but that I would definitely find all of them guilty. They wouldn't be before the Court if they weren't. I was informed that I was not needed. I should state that this was only a few months before I was exempt through age. I expect that I could have got away with serving through my mobility disablement, but it was more fun the other way.

I completely agree NotSpaghetti . I often think that some people have so may prejudices someone might be assumed "guilty" before they have even heard the case.