Jury Duty

[GHT]

Now I don't know what I'd wear, being the fact that I am most comfortable in vintage and don't own a modern suit or sport coat.

Well as you are on the west side of the pond, turning up looking like this might get you off jury service.

 

[scottyrocks]

The one time I was selected for a jury (because I wanted to be), I dressed in an eclectic mix that included slacks, a button-down shirt, tie, sport jacket, and waistcoat, pocket watch and chain included.

I guess because I am so comfortable in that type of clothing, it came off as second nature and didn't affect my getting chosen. I wore this type of clothing for the three days of the trial and deliberations.

Or it could be that I just answered the questions the way they wanted to hear.

 

[Edward]

A great tradition

If you'll all pardon me for getting all philisophical here, I find it fascinating that the British and American experience of jury duty is essentially the same. This is due to the fact that our legal system traces its origins right back to the Anglo Saxon law courts of centuries ago. For all its flaws, it's a wonderful system, nobody has really improved on it since the middle ages. Our jury system has been a bullwark for our liberties since its inception.
Anyhow, I can just imagine someone in a doublet back in Shakespeare's time, or in a top hat in Dickens's time, having exactly the same conversation.

Aside from Hal's previous comments about the three jurisdictions in the modern UK, there is one very significant difference between the jury as it has evolved and its Anglo-Saxon origins. When juries were first used, they were drawn from the local people in the village, and it was because they were the people who actually knew the facts of the case, what had happened, and were in a position to tell the court. As it exists now, juries are expected to go in knowing nothing, or as little as possible (to that end, across the UK we have very strict laws on contempt of court by publication for pending or active proceedings), and make a decision based solely upon the information given them in court. A juror who does a Henry Fonda, whether in person or online, is, since 2015, not only acting in violation of judicial instructions, but in breach of specific criminal law forbidding jury research.

I've always wanted the experience of being on a jury. For many years I was exempted on grounds of being a law student, then working in law and being a university lecturer, but now all those conditions have been relaxed, and I'm open to being called up. The old justifications were that university lecturers were treated as a "reserved occupation" on a public interest basis, and anyone with a law degree or working in law could have their opinion given too much sway by the other jurors - "This guy knows about law; let's do what he says." I presume they found that they needed to relax these as we're about the only ones left who won't try and get out of being on a jury!

 

[GHT]

Edward, whether it's fact or myth, I know not, but someone that I know from my days at Queen Mary College, insists that UK jurors are selected for jury service from the electoral register. To that end he's never enrolled on the register and has therefore never voted. I'm sure there must be some law that requires electoral registration, but even without that, his so called privacy is hardly that when he's 'known' to his local authority to whom he pays his council tax, as well as the utility companies.
He has now turned seventy, has never voted, never been called for jury service and never been chased by the authorities.
Your thoughts?

 

[Hal]

I'm sure that GHT is right, at any rate in England and Wales. Those over 70 years of age are not called, and those over 65 but under 70 can refuse jury service. I also believe that there have historically been automatic exemptions, such as police officers, though how such groups are eliminated I don't know.

 

[Edward]

Edward, whether it's fact or myth, I know not, but someone that I know from my days at Queen Mary College, insists that UK jurors are selected for jury service from the electoral register. To that end he's never enrolled on the register and has therefore never voted. I'm sure there must be some law that requires electoral registration, but even without that, his so called privacy is hardly that when he's 'known' to his local authority to whom he pays his council tax, as well as the utility companies.
He has now turned seventy, has never voted, never been called for jury service and never been chased by the authorities.
Your thoughts?

I believe that is the way it works. Much to my shock when I first discovered it, it is not an offence to refuse to register to vote. I suppose in this, as in other areas, the system assumes people will want to be able to vote, and so has never accounted for those who opt out. (There is, of course, a whole debate in and of itself about whether this should be permissible - political, certainly.) There is neither a legal duty nor obligation of law to vote in the UK.

Back in the early 1990s, there was a widespread issue of people removing themselves from the voting register, and thus opting out of the right to vote in elections, as it was widely believed that avoiding being on the register would mean they could avoid paying the controversial poll tax, which evolved into the council tax. This was the main reason many people became distanced from the voting system and the register. Certainly, not being on the electoral register does nothing for the protection of privacy. The register is made available publicly to some degree, although if you lock yourself down to the minimum going on the public element (as I do), this bans your data from being taken from it and used for any purpose other than facilitating voting. The chance of being called for jury service are very small (arguably much smaller than the impact of your individual vote on the makeup of government); there's a high chance your friend would never have been called to be on a jury anyhow, and even if called, no guarantee he'd have been required to be on a jury in the end. The age at which individuals could be called for jury service was, formerly, 18-70, though in 2014 the upper end of the age band was raised to 75 (England and Wales only; it remains 70 in the Northern Ireland jurisdiction; I don't know offhand what they do in Scotland). At that point, if the form did come in the door, the individual has a right to decline to serve on grounds of age (though I think the system is now geared to prevent the letter even being sent out).

 

[MisterCairo]

I am a lawyer and so exempt. My wife was called in for selection, but was not chosen. They simply filled up the 12 spots and one or two extras quite early. It was a murder trial that ended up lasting over a month in total sitting days.