Jury Service: Life Enhancing? No. Worthwhile? Yes
| Published date | 01 December 2005 |
| DOI | 10.1350/jcla.2005.69.6.449 |
| Date | 01 December 2005 |
| Author | James Morton |
| Subject Matter | Opinion |
OPINION
Jury Service:
Life Enhancing? No. Worthwhile? Yes
James Morton
The jury returns to the page again in autumn 2005. First, because of a
decision of the Court of Appeal in July and secondly because a friend of
mine has just returned from jury service and so, without breaking
the seal of the jury confessional, here are some of his thoughts on the
process. Empirical research as we sociologists call it.
First, the Court of Appeal decision (R vAbdroikov; R v Green; R v
Williamson [2005] EWCA Crim 1986) that the right-thinking person
would not perceive any bias if a police officer or a member of the Crown
Prosecution Service sat on a jury. Can this really be right? Just what is a
defendant—who presumably is not a right-minded person—going to
think? Sadly the Court of Appeal has never been keen to interfere in
jury selection. When during the Miners’ Strike 1984–85, a miner was
convicted and it was discovered that another non-striking miner had
been on the jury, the court refused to quash the conviction. It did
approve however of an indication by another judge who had asked any
juror to withdraw if he or she had an interest in the strike (R v Pennington
(1985) 81 Cr App R 217). A person with convictions or indeed on bail
awaiting trial is not permitted to sit on a jury presumably because he or
she is deemed to be prejudiced. Of course, an individual officer or
prosecutor may not be prejudiced, but it is ridiculous to suggest that
there is no appearance of bias if a serving officer or a person whose
whole life is spent prosecuting is a juror. Or is it simply that I am not a
right-minded person?
So on to the experiences of my friend. First, he did not think that
there was much attention paid to making the waiting jurors comfort-
able. It was in the aftermath of the July bombings in London and with
stations and lines shut he faced a difficult and lengthy journey to arrive
at court on time. Despite being told there would be a car mileage
allowance, this was not paid when he submitted his expenses. Once
signed in there were not enough seats for everyone and it was a question
of musical chairs. If you wished to go to the lavatory, it was a question of
balancing the relief against the likelihood that you would stand until
someone else’s bladder failed. Fine for the young, but not necessarily for
those jurors aged 65 and over who are now required to sit.
The catering facilities at the court left something to be desired. Credit
cards were issued to a daily maximum. If, as experienced jurors did, you
brought your own teabag, there was a charge for a polystyrene beaker.
Even during the jury’s actual retirement, coffee or tea had to be paid for.
At lunchtime, during a four-hour deliberation it was a question of
449
To continue reading
Request your trial