Those who have completed Jury Duty in the UK - what aspects about the process surprised you?
Posted by izbiz88@reddit | AskUK | View on Reddit | 255 comments
Were there any elements that you were expecting to happen differently, and what were they?
im_not_funny12@reddit
How little time you actually spend in court.
We were there for a week and I think the longest I was ever in court was an hour and a half
Fwoggie2@reddit
So plenty of opportunities to go for a loo stop if needed?
im_not_funny12@reddit
Yes. I certainly was never in for a long time. There was a jury that was doing a 9 month long case when I was there and they never seemed to be in!
gkrgreat@reddit
I was surprised by how heavy it felt to make the guilty decision. It was a young guy, obviously not too sharp - he kept on mentioning previous similar crimes where he had been sent to young offenders, and the judge kept telling him to stop bringing it up as it can affect the juror’s opinion of him, but he just wasn’t getting it.
He clearly did it and his story was a mess of absolutely insane excuses that made zero sense. He very much deserved to be found guilty but… like shit man, he’s been in juvie multiple times previously, now he’s aged into grown up prison, where he will likely just meet more people that will lead him down the bad path he’s on… it’s clearly not going to help him at this point. And you’re the one putting him in that position, by making the decision that you have no choice but to make
Hopefully I’m wrong and he eventually turned a corner, met some decent people or whatever. But it’s kind of rough to feel like even when you’re doing the ‘right’ thing in the scope of the process… is it really?
Worse for the criminal though, I’m under no illusions there. I suspect I’d feel very differently if it had been a violent/abuse crime vs relatively petty drug related stuff too
Public-Ride6405@reddit
Answer pv please
Public-Ride6405@reddit
Answer pv please
georgexsmiley@reddit
Yes. You did what you had to do, and it reflects well that you thought about doing it.
But I've been involved a lot in research on crime, and everyone involved (coppers, briefs, judges, prison officers) shares your view: people with shitty lives make shitty choices on repeat, and it's tragic. They all want to break that loop, but don't know how.
Creative-Response554@reddit
Never did Jury duty but I was a Prisoner Custody Officer for a while, one of the people in white shirts you see in the dock with the accused. We're there to look after them in detainment/catch em if they run.
What surprised me was how unbothered people are.
You'd get a few that were interested and actively listening, taking notes etc. Most stared off into the distance clearly itching to scroll on their phones or gossip or whatever.
People don't realise just how easy it is to end up in the dock. You get distracted for a moment while driving and accidentally kill someone or something like that, any kind of freak accident, someone attacks you on a night out and you fight back and seriously hurt them, you're liable.
Then, it's your turn to sit in the glass case with the gallery lookieloos staring at you and 10/12 people deciding your fate are disinterested and uninvested in the outcome because "I'll never end up there".
I guess you'd call it a lack of social responsibility.
UltimateGammer@reddit
I noticed how the PCO is some old or small person when we're going through the trial, but when the verdict comes out is when the heavies suddenly appear.
Creative-Response554@reddit
Yeah that sounds about right
Old boy isn't wrestling anyone down into the cells 😂
I got lucky and never had to fight anyone for that reason, but it got very hairy a few times
Sentencing and transport are the 2 most dangerous times
phy6rjs@reddit
It’s a great point about how easily you could end up in the dock - traffic accident. Scares me to Shit
Creative-Response554@reddit
Yeah it doesn't take much to end up there unfortunately
Never gonna happen though, not to me anyway 😂😂
lj523@reddit
That after the first day I didn't have to go back in once for the entire time.
First day I went in, got called in for the case I'd been assigned to along with more people than were needed. We listened to an overview. Then they sent us out again and picked some to come back in. I wasn't picked and spent the rest of the day just hanging out at the courthouse until I was told I could go home. They gave me a number to call each morning to find out whether my "group" was needed that day and every day I called my group wasn't needed, so I sat at home playing video games all day until my time was up and I had to go back to work.
rg06rg@reddit
Did you go back to work the days you were not needed (after finding out from the call)? Or did you go back to work after the 2 full weeks finished?? Im not sure if I stay home my boss will find out i was not needed
lj523@reddit
I didn't go back to work. I said to work that I was out for 2 weeks and that was that, never gave them any details about whether I was actually in court or not.
To be fair though, I hated the job so was very happy to not be in. I think also, given I didn't find out until morning of, if I had told my work that I wasn't needed, then they wouldn't have had time to find cover if I suddenly was needed.
Dutch_Slim@reddit
I’ve been on jury service twice in 2.5 years and wasn’t called either time
rg06rg@reddit
Really? Did you only go the 1st day?
Dutch_Slim@reddit
No, went in quite a few days but no cases for me.
StatisticianOne8287@reddit
The fact I never got called to go in for the whole two weeks!
rg06rg@reddit
Did you only go for the first day?
StatisticianOne8287@reddit
Not even the first day, I got told not to go in the day before for the first week.
Then not at all
thewednesday1867@reddit
I sat around for two days, reading a book (Sicily ‘43 by James Holland) before being dismissed and told I didn’t need to go back.
strawberry-squids@reddit
Same but it was two whole weeks for me. Never got on a trial, literally just sat reading and doing crosswords for like 6 hours. In mid July when the weather outside was glorious I might add 🥲
rg06rg@reddit
Did u have to go in the building the 2 weeks? Or did you call the number the day before and they let you stay home/continue your job for that day that you not needed?? I have gone 2 days and the rest freed so i had to get back to work..
Sandstormink@reddit
Same. Great coffee and breakfast sandwiches, but boring as hell. 2 weeks of doing nothing at all.
Temporary_Ebb9486@reddit
I think this is shameful and sociopathic. We live in a society and for it to function we have civic responsibility. To sneer like a 14 year old and brag on here, it’s appalling. I bet your peers say this is “classic” you.
Temporary_Ebb9486@reddit
Oh wait, have I missed something ? In my mind your reading during the trial !
crankyandhangry@reddit
No, they were likely a backup juror and told to wait around in case someone failed to show up on the first day. Everyone says to bring a book!
I was wondering what was so awful about 'Sicily '43' to elicit that reaction from you!
AlessaDark@reddit
No. They were reading while waiting.
ServerLost@reddit
Go outside pal, you need some fresh air.
pafrac@reddit
Yep, pretty much the same when my wife was called up. Told it was a very serious case and to expect it to take some time ... then a couple of days later they said, actually the trial's not going ahead now, you can go home, we don't need you any more. Never even found out what the trial was about.
At least she got expenses.
ohhallow@reddit
I had that for four days and then got plonked on a bastard trial midday on the Friday.
thomasthetanker@reddit
So I just need to take a copy of that book with me...
hoistec@reddit
I was very surprised at just how thick and/or boneheaded some of the other jurors were.
smoulderstoat@reddit
It could have been worse. When Vicky Pryce (wife of Chris Huhne MP) was on trial for fraudulently taking his speeding points, the jury sent the judge a note with a list of questions that were so catastrophically stupid that he discharged them and started all over again with a different jury.
jiggjuggj0gg@reddit
Incredible
D0wnInAlbion@reddit
The judge is wrong about the second point though. Ultimately, a jury can make a decision based on whatever factors they want as they do not have to validate their judgement nor is the is there any recourse for 'wrong' decisions.
utukore@reddit
You swear to give a true verdict according to the evidence. If you are later stating you ignored that evidence and chose a punishment based on an unrelated reason, then you haven't upheld your oath as a jurer.
thebusconductorhines@reddit
Jury nullification is legal though
utukore@reddit
Ofc. But thats a whole different discusson about morality vs legality.
Blazured@reddit
This is false. As a member of the jury you don't have to come to a verdict based on anything presented in court. You're expected to, but you don't have to.
jiggjuggj0gg@reddit
So if you can read, you can see that they were explicitly instructed to not do that
Blazured@reddit
And? They don't have to listen to that. The judge can't make them.
jiggjuggj0gg@reddit
This is like saying "yeah you're not allowed to lie on the stand, but the judge can't make you tell the truth".
These are principles the entire legal system hinges on. If you don't understand that you should not be making decisions about someone's life based on random things you pulled out of your arse, and not from the evidence in front of you, you are not fit to be a juror, which is why this jury was dismissed.
Blazured@reddit
The principles of the legal system is that the jury determines guilt. It only the juries opinion that matters. So what the judge said was entirely false.
He expects them to determine it the way he wants them to, but no one in the jury is required to. The judge can't overrule their decision.
jiggjuggj0gg@reddit
No. Jurors must make their decision based only on the evidence presented to them during the trial.
Thank you for being a glowing example of the issues of using random people who don't know what they're doing as jurors, though.
Blazured@reddit
Yet they don't have to. They can make it based on anything. So what the judge said was false.
jiggjuggj0gg@reddit
Yes, they do have to. No, they can't base it on anything. No, the judge was correct.
Blazured@reddit
No, they don't. And there's nothing the judge can do about their decision.
jiggjuggj0gg@reddit
If anyone in the jury discussion were making arguments based on things not in evidence, they would be removed from the jury by the judge.
You seem remarkably confident for someone who doesn't have a cue what they're talking about, which is another issue with juries.
C2BK@reddit
I'm definitely stealing this.
SpaTowner@reddit
He discharged them the next day after they said they wouldn’t be able to reach a 10/12 verdict.
Looking at the questions I think there were probably several perfectly competent jurors struggling with at least 3 others who were making up their own evidence as they went along.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21521460
Alternative-Emu2000@reddit
I particularly liked the judicial language the judge used to point out what a pack of idiots the jury was, he described them as having "an absolutely fundamental deficit in understanding."
Dutch_Slim@reddit
Ooh I worked with her
smoulderstoat@reddit
Were you sewing mailbags?
Chevalitron@reddit
I remember that. Makes you wonder how useless these people are in their ordinary lives.
Digital-Dinosaur@reddit
I work as a digital Forensics expert and often get called as an expert witness. Some of the questions the jury raise sometimes are absolutely astonishing
SpaTowner@reddit
Can you give us any kind of example?
Digital-Dinosaur@reddit
Yeah so typically I have explain really complex things to show how I got evidence, if I've done my job right I hope to have no questions. Now bare in mind I also have the defence cross examine me to argue various defences.
I have had multiple times, the jury ask, "were they hacked?"
Also "could they have accidentally downloaded indecent material?". This one irks me the most as I would have spent at least the last day showing the search history and communications that the defendant would have been entering to their computer to find child sex abuse material
SelfSufficientHub@reddit
"imagine how stupid the average person is then realise half of all people are stupider than that”. George Carlin
kouroshkeshmiri@reddit
Someone should've shown Carlin a bell curve.
MrPogoUK@reddit
There’s a quote along the lines of “the average jury may have one or two people diligently doing their civic duty, but for the most part intelligent people come up with an excuse to get out of it, so it’s largely comprised by people who are too stupid to get out of it, and often angry as a result.”
barejokez@reddit
Getting out of jury duty in the UK is pretty difficult. Compared to the USA where there are all sorts of loopholes...
lost-in-midgard@reddit
I'd say that's broadly true of my experience. I was pleased to do it, it felt meaningful and worthwhile. Until I met the other jurors...
thegroucho@reddit
Good old George Carlin ...
Most of his comedy was a warning, not just entertainment.
lost-in-midgard@reddit
Yep. A couple of mine just did not seem to get what they were there to do, and insisted on everything being brought down to their pace.
I remember one lady going on and on about how unreasonable it was the defendants might have ramifications the rest of their loves for something they did whole in their 20s. Like that's meant to be a factor in their guilt or not...
Key_Distribution8794@reddit
You have no idea. My take away is a lot of money is wasted on trivial things. Probably because the case I got was a silly one. Two drunk teenagers had crossed words, escalated to pushing, one fell down and injured himself so the other was up for GBH.
So clear cut that the legal definition didn't apply but the amount of "but what if..." statements from fellow jurors was infuriating. My answer was always, the prosecution haven't shown that so we can't consider it in our verdict. A five minute deliberation went on for 5 hours over what ifs. So annoying!
MrPogoUK@reddit
There’s a saying along the lines of “the average jury may have one or two people diligently doing their civic duty, but for the most part intelligent people come up with an excuse to get out of it, so it’s largely comprised by people who are too stupid to get out of it, and often angry as a result.”
lasarus29@reddit
And how easily they were convinced by the smarter jurors. Essentially exaggerating the votes of the smarter jurors.
getoutmywayatonce@reddit
I’ve never done jury duty and tbh don’t want to, because this is exactly what I assumed it would be like lol. I’ve always feared the concept of a jury if I was one day a victim of something! Absolutely do not trust the level of collective common sense of a randomly plucked bunch of the public
himmygal@reddit
Its a ridiculous and absurd system. Its time for it to go. And yet when the government sensibly tried to scale it back, the media and legal profession crashed out about it. Unbelievable!
thedingoismybaby@reddit
If juries should be abandoned, because they are incapable of making the right decisions based on the right reasoning, then that should be the argument used. Not a supposed financial saving.
goodallw0w@reddit
It is, but it also has played an essential role curtailing government overreach, particularly while democracy was in its infancy.
himmygal@reddit
Oh yes don't disagree with that. But its 2026, not the 1640s.
jackgrafter@reddit
I’m convinced that some of my fellow jurors wanted to find the guy in our case guilty of the most serious crimes so they’d have a cool story to tell their mates.
BadestTony@reddit
Yes, this. Couldn't believe how stupid and prejudiced some were. A case where both perpetrator and victims were all drug users " I think they're all as bad as each other and we should find them all guilty".
Haunting_Being@reddit
I had the reverse, one jurer who just did not want to convict. Three drugs charges and one of perverting the course of justice.
The Jurer didn't want to convict as the defendant had children. We had been instructed to go by a degree of probability for the drug charges (taking them all together). The other charge had also been clearly proven and was just a simple fact (moving a body), she wouldn't even budge on that one.
We ended up in deliberation for 3 1/2 days if memory serves, the judge ended up letting us do a majority verdict. We'd have probably been done in one afternoon if it hadn't been for her.
ammaippo@reddit
I had a similar experience. A case of a 16yr old boy who molested his little sister. A couple of the other jurors would not follow the judges instruction and kept assuming things with no justification to do so. For instance, one question asked of the parents was 'did you have p*rn in the house she (the young girl) could have seen?' - implying the description of the abuse could have been a recounting of something she'd watched instead. Parents said 'no'.. These jurors said they didn't believe them because 'they look the type to have had it and they bet they were lying'.... They refused to assess based on evidence given alone and the result was no verdict (judge wanted unanimous). We were sent back and told a majority verdict would be accepted but the 2 of them who would not judge on evidence alone managed to instill enough doubt in a 3rd jurors - a verdict wasnt reached and the poor little girl had to go through a retrial. I contacted the court regularly for an update on the case because I couldn't get it out of my head. He was eventually found guilty.....
bulletproof_vest@reddit
Oh my god. Yes. Being stuck in a room with a woman repeatedly going “I don’t care what anyone says, if you get behind the wheel of a car drunk, that’s dangerous driving” despite how the judge had taken great care to explain he had already been charged for drunk driving and we were there to ascertain whether, sobriety aside, what he did was dangerous driving, another thing that he very carefully explained and the difference.
Most infuriating wasted hours of my life going back and forth with her
Outside_Mistake_4107@reddit
Well, I agree with her. Might as well find him guilty for dangerous driving.
WarmCalligrapher7281@reddit
Which is why you'd make an annoying as hell juror.
If someone is stopped by the police because they are displaying odd driving behaviour, maybe driving even a bit too cautiously to the point where it raises suspicion, they may stop you and breathalyse you. If you are above the limit, you get done for drunk driving even if your driving wasn't in itself enough to cause a conviction for dangerous driving.
bibonacci2@reddit
100% my experience too. Not just thick but totally lacking agency, my lot. Of the 12 we had about three of us actually going through the evidence and the other nine just looked on with slack jaws.
If anyone ever suggests we can cut juries down from 12 people , make sure you write to your MP to reject. All sorts could go wrong as we needed 12 people to have enough competence in the room.
rebelallianxe@reddit
Yeah there were me and 2 others actually looking at the evidence in my jury.
Fantastic-Dingo-5806@reddit
This is partially why I don't believe being judged by jurors is suitable anymore. A significant portion of people are shockingly thick. Imagine being innocent and being judged by these thickos.
Bubble-Master96@reddit
YES! I was on a sexual abuse case and I couldn’t believe some of the archaic attitudes towards the victims. It was so eye opening and genuinely infuriating. I cried coming home almost every night from our case, it was just awful.
Found not guilty in the end, evidence was shit.
agentrossi176@reddit
I had a similar experience. Even after the law on sexual assault was explained extremely clearly by the judge, we still wasted a huge amount of time convincing two women that a sixteen year old girl voluntarily going to a man's home does not mean she consented to anything sexual happening.
Convicted him though, and once we did all the 'plot holes' we'd been querying turned out to be tied to another case he'd already been convicted on, but we couldn't know during the trial so as not to prejudice us. Guy was a repeat offender, very glad we got there in the end.
technonotice@reddit
I was feeling pretty stupid when I learned afterwards what those plot holes were!
In our case we were talking about a relationship over years with lots ups & downs and gaps. I didn't think much of it until we learned during sentencing that the defendant had prior stints in jail.
Willing_Coconut4364@reddit
Ditto
RhubarbSalty3588@reddit
Exactly what I was going to say.I couldn’t believe that such an important possible life changing procedure was left in the hands of the jurors I was with. One of the chosen jurors on her way into the court room said "if this is a sex abuse case,il make sure he goes to jail" a fellow juror nodded and agreed. The usher luckily overheard them and dismissed them from the jury!! For the record it was a sexual abuse case.
aembleton@reddit
One way to get out of jury service
RhubarbSalty3588@reddit
Just say you recognise the name of the accused,that’ll do the trick.
Emsicals@reddit
I was on a case where the prosecution's evidence hinged on fairly standard maths and physics (think speed / distance stuff) and the prosecutor did a really good job of explaining it.
The other 11 jurors just didn't get it. It was really eye opening to me. A majority not guilty verdict was the result and I still maintain it was very wrong.
abfgern_@reddit
And yet everyone moaned when it was suggested to use professional trained judges to deliberate the most minor cases, despite it being quite a sensible idea...
himmygal@reddit
Its one of the best policies of this government. But they'll U turn because of the hissy fits of the right wing press and self interested barristers.
abfgern_@reddit
I dont think it was ever actually a stated policy, someone just said they might look into it to reduce the court backlogs. But yeah
MineMelodic5454@reddit
I’m going to be generous and say the ‘thick’ ones on my jury were people who had never learned or were never taught to work their way through a decision logically. They simply had no ability to think of a problem to solve in terms other than their initial opinion. It was all emotion, all knee jerk opinion. The more we tried to have a step by step conversation about the evidence and arguments the less they engaged and the more they dig themselves into defending their view, with no ability to justify it. Shows you what a bubble I’m in that I’d never met anyone like that.
RhubarbSalty3588@reddit
Also we were sent for deliberation at 12.50pm (10minutes before we were allowed out for dinner). One juror said "let’s make our deliberation really quickly so we dont have to come back after dinner!!!!"
shanna811@reddit
We went back in the morning to begin our deliberations amhad a verdict in ten minutes and some of them wanted to stay because they pre-ordered their lunch. That didnt happen and we were on our way home by 11:30.
Also the prosecution made the ridiculous argument that the guy should have dug through his bag and just grabbed his keys and phone when told to leave rather than just grab his packed backpack and take the whole thing with him. The police officer who had just testified and was listening to the rest of the proceedings looked at us and knew they had just lost all the additional charges that came from taking the backpack with him.
zilchusername@reddit
Isn’t that a true representation of the public as it’s supposed to be?
FuckedupUnicorn@reddit
That a kettle wasn’t allowed. Apparently people have chucked boiling water at each other before.
A British court. And you can’t make tea. Outrageous.
Oneill95@reddit
How inefficient the system is. Some jurors spend 2 weeks sat in a waiting room never seeing a court room.
How stupid some jurors are. "They seem like a wrong'un, so they probably did it"...
SpAn12@reddit
With hindsight it was one of the most obvious things that surprised me.
You can have a dozen people who have listened in to the same information, at the same time, over many hours. And they will come to wildly different conclusions.
And will then, with these different conclusions, they proceed to thrash it out over many more hours in a type of social peer pressure as individuals eventually back down. before a decision is reached.
In its own way I found it sort of frightening.
Menyana@reddit
Yeeah it was. There was a lot of bias. People I was stuck with just weren't willing to consider that their bias was not fact.
I refused to back down but it was hard. In the end it was me and another lady in tears of frustration, sadness and anger, both refusing to budge.
zebra1923@reddit
This is true throughly the justice system. If you read Supreme Court rulings, most of them are not unanimous and the most senior judges in the land disagree on interpretation of the law.
musicfortea@reddit
What if you don't engage? You give your opinion, and then keep quiet, are you pressured to speak more?
Or could you say "I don't have an opinion" and leave it at that?
gyroda@reddit
At some point you've gotta give your verdict.
mostly_kittens@reddit
Everyone treats the jury system as sacrosanct but it is just a crude mechanism to guard against abuse by the powerful. It’s not a system for producing the correct outcome.
RobotsVsLions@reddit
The best way I've seen it summed up is "Juries are terrible, the only single thing worse than a Jury is no Jury"
izbiz88@reddit (OP)
This is so interesting. I can’t help but imagine a kind of school / workplace scenario…ultimately, in social situations when there are disagreements, it is often those who shout the loudest and have the most presence that get the last word (whether they are right or not). Would you agree?
SpAn12@reddit
It is totally like that.
Then throw into that pressure cooker any existing outside bias that the jurors carry with them.
Also, that most won't be familiar with legal wording that they are even judging the accused against, which creates even more chaos.
And as a cherry on top, that many won't understand the scientific rigour (or not) behind evidence that has been presented. So even more carnage.
Honestly, it was wild.
ImBonRurgundy@reddit
izbiz88@reddit (OP)
Scary stuff!
zilchusername@reddit
There was a tv program that simulated a court case and filmed the ‘jury’ the amount of bullying taking place was dreadful and I could easily image that happens in real life. The worse thing is I don’t think the jurors can complain about it as they are not allowed to talk about the case.
nouazecisinoua@reddit
Do you remember the name of the show? It sounds like an interesting watch
Jackiechan89@reddit
There was one on Channel 4 that was called “The Jury: Murder Trial”. They reenacted a real case using actors for the defendants, lawyers etc, but the jury were members of the public. The first series had two separated juries trying the same case, which was really interesting (and terrifying) as you get to see how differently the exact same evidence and testimony can be interpreted by two different groups of people.
medievalpangolin@reddit
Here you go: https://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-jury-murder-trial
Xivii@reddit
Jurors can, and are encouraged to raise issues with fellow jurors to the judge. Will it derail the entire process and make the time already spent an even bigger waste of time? Yup. But if you have concerns, you are supposed to raise it.
stiiii@reddit
Yeah I almost felt bad we sort of bullied people into changing sides. But they were utterly useless and wrong so I didn't really feel bad.
lbyc@reddit
I did jury service in a coroner’s court which was interesting, as only unusual deaths get to go to a coroners court with a jury - the jury was allowed to ask witnesses questions, and we had to deliver ‘narrative’ verdicts setting out all the facts of the case as we saw them (5 pages of A4, in one of the cases we had!).
Menyana@reddit
They kept mentioning text messages but never provided us with transcripts. It felt odd like they purposefully weren't giving us all the info we needed to make a unanimous decision.
Alternative-Emu2000@reddit
I wasn't expecting that the jury would be asked to leave the courtroom so many times in each session. According to the usher, it was usually because the judge had to make a decision on whether certain pieces of evidence and witness testimony was something we were allowed to hear. eg. referring to the fact that the defendant had initially pled guilty, but then changed his mind and decided to try his luck at trial.
Some of the other jurors really didn't seem to understand what a jury was, or why they were there - even after going through the induction process; and the very patient usher explaining it to them repeatedly eg. one of the jurors was genuinely surprised that it was our decision that determined the outcome of the trial; she assumed that we were just there to be witnesses to the court case, and it was up to the judge to decide whether the defendant was guilty or not.
Positive_Passion4817@reddit
Not too sound racist but in your estimation were they born in the UK?
Alternative-Emu2000@reddit
She had an East Yorkshire accent that made Lucy Beaumont sound like Judi Dench. If she wasn't from the UK, she had one hell of an accent coach.
Positive_Passion4817@reddit
Well there are lots of stupid people born here but I expect them to have picked up how it works. I could excuse someone who grew up in a dictatorship or countries or countries that have systems that don't have juries. Juries and lay magistrates probably seem like a unbelievable system to people from most countries I think - most of Europe doesn't even have juries.
PumpkinJambo@reddit
Yeah, last time I was on a jury there was one member who really couldn’t seem to grasp that we were making a ‘real life’ decision and that no-one was actually going to tell us if we’d guessed correctly or not. They didn’t appear to have taken in any of the evidence we heard and made absolutely no notes. It was infuriating.
izbiz88@reddit (OP)
This is mad! Guessing she’s not a true crime fan 😅
Acrylic_Starshine@reddit
I did my first one during covid so i was surprised with everything as we had to queue up like robots, there was no canteen and had a limit for the toilet.
The waiting. Judge wants a coffee break.. come back in 20 mins.. judge wants lunch.. come back in a hour.. judge wants to go home.. out by 4:30pm instead of just doing it all in one day.
My second time (which also surprised me because its bullshit i got randomly picked twice), was ALL waiting and i wasnt picked at all.. so like 4 days doing nothing. Those quite comfy chairs became very uncomfortable.
quoole@reddit
I got called literally three months after my first time, was very happy to find out you can turn it down within two years!
Creative-Response554@reddit
Yeah judges can be like that
God forbid you be late though, I had a bollocking off one for being late once as an officer but my reason is that the 6 hour drive after getting out of the prison 2 hours late, plus the roadworks and an RTC held me up.
Judge doesn't give a shit, just likes to feel important and shit on their underlings.
PumpkinJambo@reddit
How little time you actually spend in court. Started at 10, then there would often be a break, then back in, then lunch and then the afternoon session would end whenever the advocates or judge deemed it appropriate, never very late. Then having to leave court during sessions so that the advocates could speak to the judge to clarify things or present something new.
How much some other jury members didn’t appear to take things seriously. There was one who seemed to think we were on some kind of reality TV programme and someone would reveal before the end whether the accused was guilty or not, rather than us in the room coming to the conclusion.
People not understanding the ‘not proven’ verdict, but that won’t be a thing any more now it’s been removed.
It was a horrible case and I still think about it now, many years later.
quoole@reddit
Yeah, a lot of waiting around! I was part of a panel on day 1 and not chosen, then asked to stick around for the second case on the calendar (even though I hadn't been called as part of the panel) which the accused eventually pled guilty too.
Then I was asked to come back for day 2 for the new case they were bringing in and that took almost all day to actually get in, be selected for the jury and start. Then the next day took forever to get going, but the case was relatively short!
But so much sitting and waiting around...
C2BK@reddit
How incredibly badly organised and wasteful time-wise the whole thing was.
I ended up not being selected at all, but had to turn up on numerous days to be told first thing in the morning (and I mean 09:30 which is apparently first thing for the court) that I wasn't needed, and that I could leave.
There was a limit on the car parking you could claim, but the nearest car park (that they suggested that jurors use) was more expensive than the limit. Oh, and you had to pay for an all day ticket, but ended up not needing it, but they didn't care about that.
They had tiny lockers for jurors' belongings that were too small for a laptop, so after the first day, when I had to stay there doing sod all for the entire day, I had to spend the day reading a book and couldn't get any of my work done, because I couldn't bring my work laptop because there would have been nowhere to secure it while I was in the court room (you weren't allowed to bring laptops in). Fortunately I didn't know that on the first day and brought it anyway, so at least that day wasn't completely wasted.
quoole@reddit
I was surprised at how different it was compared to how it's shown on US shows. The key one being, US shows often show the lawyers questioning potential jury members and there are certain things you can say to get out of it. (Not that that was my intention!) And then you just seem to be sent home.
That process literally doesn't exist in the UK - if you're selected to potentially be on a jury (the whole process of being selected, being on a jury panel and actually being on a jury is quite different to what I expected!) The only way to get out of it (and that's just that case, you can still be selected for another) is to have a conflict of interest (basically they read out a list of names, addresses and businesses and you have to declare it you have any connection to them.)
The other thing that surprised me is basically how little prep you get as a juror and that would make me terrified as a criminal! Your fate is decided by literally 12 random people who don't really want to be there.
purrfectly-cromulent@reddit
How racist all the other jurors were.
Lastfleetadmiral@reddit
The amount of time wasted and the poor state of the court buildings and total lack of amenities for the jury. Pretty much sums up the UK as a whole I’m afraid
Aggressive_Pomelo_81@reddit
Main observations from me: - Wildly inefficient and paper-based process from start to finish that would not be allowed in private sector. Signed in each day with a different method: sign on this line next to your name, tick a box next to your name - oh wait you're not on the list, add your name to this list. Expenses were claimed on a paper form. Emergency contact details written on paper form and posted in an overflowing box you wouldn't be able to sort in an emergency.
The front row of the jury didn't take any notes during the three days of evidence. The back row of the jury did take notes. As a result we were able to invalidate the recall of the front bench members in deliberations.
Many people called for juries for long trials were doing/saying anything to get out of them. Made me think about who ends up on those juries - those with large employers that can pay full pay, those with no caring responsibilities etc. not necessarily a cross-section of society at that point.
No free tea/coffee/snacks
Hell is other people - in a room of 100+, people still thinking it's okay to play videos out loud.
Camaraderie formed quickly in my jury to the point that the aunties brought samosas and spring rolls to our last day of deliberations.
lost-in-midgard@reddit
How far away the court was from where I lived. Almost an hour's drive each way.
Dazzling_One_4335@reddit
That there's absolutely zero attempt at keeping the accused, their family/friends or defence witnesses away from you when you're not in the actual courtroom. You can be entering/exiting the building with them right before you, standing outside at during lunch etc. They know who you are and you know who they are and it doesn't feel safe.
Snappy0@reddit
Oh that didn't happen to me. Jurors were segregated from everyone else. We had a separate entrance and exit point too, usually which allowed us to exit the area a lot quicker than the main entry and exit points.
LunchAffectionate762@reddit
Yes! We all had it but in a way it felt worse for me. I was the juror in the wheelchair. Not only did it mean I stood out, but the back exit, where they took all the other jurors out was down several flights of stairs with no lift. I had to be escorted out every evening because the defence solicitor had this lovely habit of having a conference with his client in front of the only lift in the building. So much time spent hiding behind a door waiting for them to leave so I could use the lift. Even worse when we left after convicting him and his family shouting threats at his victims and trying to stare us down. I felt so exposed and vulnerable
CthulhusEvilTwin@reddit
I did my jury service at the Old Bailey and once we were on a trial we were told to exit through a rear courtyard not the front.
PresidentSlow@reddit
Had the same experience. Found someone guilty and his family in the gallery kicked off and the court had to be cleared. We were given a police escort from the building who went as far as the court steps. We were then advised to ask stay together and go to the town centre and get transport from there.
Will be using that as an excuse for why I couldn't give an unbiased verdict if I get called up again.
akl78@reddit
At Woolwich there’s like three places to buy lunch even vaguely within walking distance.
It’s awkward for everyone when you run into each other at McD’s one day, Tesco the next.
pizzaosaurs@reddit
I was a witness to a case and I was behind a screen with only the jury, lawyers and judge etc able to see me. Even came in through a secret door and everything.
It feels crazy that they didn't keep you separate! It was literally one of the angles I had the defence lawyer tried to use in that I would have had a biased view point of what happened because I had spoken to the victim. Pointed out that I talked to him for 5 minutes as I was trying to make sure he was ok and gave him my details as he called the police. In fact I spoke to an elderly couple who saw more than me and told me what they saw... You could be biased or threatened during lunch!
TheLittleGoat@reddit
Yeah I had our defendant getting his bag searched right behind me in the queue and I hated it. Absolutely hated it.
gkrgreat@reddit
Omg yes 😂 we were warned as we left, having found a guy guilty, that he would be released that afternoon pending his sentencing, which was to be completed in a couple of weeks. We were told he would likely be getting the train back home, so “maybe avoid the train station for the next couple of hours”. I felt so safe, not.
acmhkhiawect@reddit
There was actually a case within my court of a juror being approached by a family member of the accused. I can't remember exactly what happened as a result but they take it incredibly seriously! I think most people are sensible enough not to try anything, knowing it will only be detrimental to them/their family.
Thread942@reddit
Found myself in a car park lift one morning with one of the defendants mid way through a trial. They ask, “going down?”. Had to bite my lip to not respond to that one.
RhubarbSalty3588@reddit
Yes this I found unbelievable also.
Bubble-Master96@reddit
Omg this. I saw them constantly outside the building. They could have followed me back to my car very easily.
-C80-@reddit
I felt this too! There was no attempt to keep us separate or anything and although nothing happened, it was still really intimidating walking to my car afterward and seeing the accused’s family and friends in the same car-park!
Snappy0@reddit
You realise quickly how prejudiced many people are, especially the older generation in my experience at least.
Lance_Operazole@reddit
What surprised me is how slow everything is. The case I was on should have never really gone to court, the evidence showed he was clearly guilty and he should have plead as such but because he plead not guilty a trial had to happen. Could have been done in a day, two at most, but it took a whole week.
justbiteme2k@reddit
The whole thing is so massively inefficient. Starts late, finishes early, 100s of times you're asked to leave the court room. It's not that they're all really relaxed, it's that there is zero attempt to get through a case in a reasonable timeframe.
You need someone from an F1 pit crew to observe it for a few days, then completely redesign the whole place, structure of proceedings, processes, the rooms, the R&Rs, everything.
SpaTowner@reddit
There’s a lot of the process of a case being at trial that happens before court sits for the day, or needs to be conducted between lawyers/parties without the jury present. It can’t just be optimised for economy of the jurors’ time.
citron_bjorn@reddit
Thats understandable but surely it could all be done before or after the trial hearing that day
SpaTowner@reddit
Not all of it can be done that way, but that is part of why court sits late and rises early. Sometimes they need to break in response to something that has happened in the course of the trial.
In US court/crime dramas you get a lot of stuff where the judge takes counsel to their chambers to discuss stuff away from the jury. I don’t think that’s the habit here, so if the jury needs not to be exposed to a discussion, the jury has to leave.
Eddie_Youds@reddit
That I'd see the defendants waiting for the same train as me in the evenings. Good stuff.
skimney@reddit
How awful the prosecutors were at what is their only job. Unprepared, confused about basic facts of the cases, asking the most absurd pointless questions.... I know they're underfunded, but these were the cases that actually got to court. They only prosecute if they think they can get a conviction.
zilchusername@reddit
What about the defence were they any better?
Creative-Response554@reddit
The defence usually have it easy because CPS is so woefully inadequate.
There's money to be made in defence if going private, not so for prosecutions or duty solicitor so the quality of those is dramatically lower than the quality of a private defence solicitor/barrister.
The workload they have is also massive.
I saw CPS fail to prosecute a threatening communications trial 3 times by failing to bring the evidence, namely the screenshots of him threatening to beat the shit out of her and her new boyfriend in front of their (accused and her) son to show his kid what a big man he is.
We ended up having to release him. He was in 3 weeks later on a GBH charge for, you guessed it, beating the fuck out of his ex and her new fella.
It'd be funny how incompetent they are if the real world consequences of it weren't so dire.
gkrgreat@reddit
Yeah, agreed at the woeful under preparedness in some cases! I had a cybercrime one, and the prosecution amounted to “we don’t understand how he did it, but he deffo did”. Plus the lead detective had been promoted to a different force or team or whatnot after the investigation but before the trial, so the detective being questioned hadn’t even been the one investigating and therefore had no idea what to say to most questions. Not his fault personally, he was doing his best, but it was pretty shambolic
The judge went to great lengths to stress before we went for deliberation that the prosecution have to have proved the case beyond reasonable doubt, so he was clearly trying to lead us to the correct conclusion of “he probably did it, but the case against him is so comically weak that we shouldn’t even be sitting here right now”
citron_bjorn@reddit
Insane that people not even involved in the case can be made to answer questions
coupepixie@reddit
It's usually because they are so short staffed that the barristers often only get the case the night before or morning of the trial.
E420CDI@reddit
Secret Barrister is quite an eye-opener on this
asjonesy99@reddit
from second hand experience they’ll have spent their time well beyond a 9-5 preparing for another case, then have that case moved and a new one dumped on them at the last minute.
bit unfair to assume they’re just unprepared or awful at their job.
Creative-Response554@reddit
I didn't say they were bad at their jobs, though the calibre of solicitor/barrister isn't the same as you'd get paying for one, outside the odd "the law is my calling" type which are rare. Few go into law because they want to, it's usually for money.
But the caseload and disorganisation of the court system certainly doesn't help.
North_Still_2234@reddit
How much sitting around and waiting there was
Ill-Opportunity8918@reddit
It was quite interesting to hear a not very interesting case. Better than working anyhow. I could happily become a professional juror. The jury was made up of quite intelligent people really. There was only me and another guy who seemed to come from a council estate manual labour background. And I consider myself reasonably intelligent. It was ok and nothing really surprised me. Nobody really argued as it all seemed cut and dried from the start.
CommunicationParty96@reddit
As a court usher, its more boring than people generally expect, alot of waiting around, going into court for a bit, having a break, waiting around some more etc Some jurors are more invested than others, some jurors are lovely, some complain the whole time about how they don't wanna be there - Had a few people surprised that they are on jury duty for as long as the trial takes(??) And just didn't show up the next day bc they assumed jury service only lasted one day lol
Fish_Goes_Moo@reddit
Courts are backed up because they are wasting time on nonsense cases that will go no where. I had two cases, neither had any chance of getting a guilty, but still had to waste court time.
One was just the police trying to fit someone up. The other was two flatmates in a punch up in their flat. 0 chance of guilty in either of them, but still had to tie up court time.
Caacrinolass@reddit
There's lots of waiting about. Waiting to be selected is the big one - day and a half for that, for a trial that lasted about as long. Juries are also not present in the court room itself for extended periods, largely because our opinion on the quality of law itself is not wanted. Lawyers may discuss law with the judge or whether evidence is admissable etc but that debate is not to colour our opinions.
Bring a book. Other items you bring may be troublesome. For example, you cannot bring a metal fork for your lunch. Could be a weapon, you know.
Its also difficult to appreciate how high the burden of proof is demanded to be, such that I believe miscarriages must be very rare. In our case we thought the guy was guilty but had to acquit because the evidence was weak. Thats unsatisfactory but better than getting it wrong the other way.
Tight_Day_9715@reddit
I’m 19 and got called 😭 will I be the youngest person there
liquidpagan@reddit
Oooh I did jury duty last year so have some thoughts!
Firstly unlike a lot of other people it seems. I had the most wonderful group of people on the jury with me, I honestly left thinking "if that's a cross section of Britain, then we're doing a lot better than I might have thought"
Secondly, just how much waiting around and how long some things felt, I appreciate there's a lot of evidence and stuff to get through, but at times it felt like we were in and out.
Thirdly, and possibly my favourite was the bit of sass from the judge, ofcourse he didn't say anything I don't think we hadn't already picked up on. But there was a moment towards the end were he asked the defendant some questions, and just ran rings around them. It was fascinating to see.
I honestly loved the experience, I think mostly for the novelty of it, but it was quite enjoyable.
Paperopiero@reddit
I did jury duty two years ago, my experience is like your. I found my fellow jurors all thoughful, focused on the process, and careful about details when we decided our position. We were clearly of all ways of life, yet all equally engaged and contributing. The judge was crystal clear in explaining in detail our role, the case, what we would decide about. More than once, to be sure that everyone understood. I'm not British, I found this an incredible experience. A sign of a true democracy. I'm grateful to have had the opportunity to be part of a jury.
SwansEscapedRonson@reddit
Really nice to hear a different take! I’m glad your experience had some positives
Responsible-Ad-1086@reddit
Just how much time is wasted where nothing happens and when they forget to collect the accused from prison.
DBv1@reddit
It was a valuable opportunity to get a glimpse into our legal system but it made me believe that jury trials are flawed and might not be the best option. I am convinced that a different jury, presented with the same evidence might have come to the opposite conclusion. A lot of the decision making felt like it was about group dynamics rather than evidence and it surprised me how little of the evidence and arguments made in court over a number of days people seemed to remember. Personal beliefs definitely also played into people’s decision making.
SpaTowner@reddit
The case I was on, the defendant was Polish and everything had to be translated for him. That meant it was much easier to take comprehensive notes, which a couple of us did. The notes were extremely useful in deliberations because jury members who hadn’t taken notes generally had a poor recall of the evidence.
And yeah, some people are not bright.
Jarcooler@reddit
I was foreman on a fairly serious trial and found the jury experience fairly depressing and terrifying, realising how random it is and that some people on juries simply don't give a shit, pay much attention or are simply quite thick. I really never want to be in a position where a jury is deciding my fate after that.
A couple of the other jurors took the piss out of me for taking notes. Jurors ignored the judge's instructions and googled the defendent who had previous convictions which weren't meant to prejudice the case we were on.
In discussions 11 of us thought guilty and 1 guy thought there was reasonable doubt, but when he realised he was the only one he pretty candidly said he'll just say guilty to get this over with, he halfheartedly justified it saying we'd convinced him but it was obvious.
The waiting to be selected bit is kind of like being in limbo, show up to a giant waiting room for a few days in a row with dozens of other people with no idea if/when you'll be called. Quite interesting to observe in a social experiment kind of way, saw cliques form in a few days.
SpaTowner@reddit
Did you report the googling to anyone?
BoxWonderful5393@reddit
Not been on a jury but I've given evidence and 3 observations:
You really have to dumb things down for the Jury and give evidence as though you're talking to a child
I can't believe how many members turn up in tshirts, jeans etc. Yes I know you have to sit for a long time but ffs it's a court; show some respect.
If you ever give evidence, address the answers to the jury. They're the ones you're trying to convince and you can see the moment it clicks with them.
lovesorangesoda636@reddit
How fucking inefficient it all was, and I got the "better" version because I did it during Covid. But needing to call a number, to listen to a voicemail, which tells you to attend because you might get picked? And then you spend hours sitting around waiting for something to happen, only for you to spend 10 minutes in court before being sent away again.
ChompsnRosie@reddit
I was foreman of a trial with quite serious charges. Standing up and having to say the word "guilty" 14 odd times and knowing it'll put another human in prison for a loooonnnng time was tough.
As a jury you came to the decision together, but being the person saying it really hit hard.
parklife980@reddit
Isn't that tempered by the fact you've sat through forensically-detailed, first-hand accounts of what they did? Is there a sense of " ...and they deserve it" after all that?
ManBearHybrid@reddit
I had a similar situation to the person you're replying to. Mine was a sexual assault case. Neither party denied that there was sex, but the victim was too drunk to be able to consent. The defendant didn't deny that there was alcohol involved on both sides, but he said he wasn't aware of how drunk she was exactly and thought that he had her consent. After reviewing a lot of evidence, we came to the inescapable conclusion that that he did indeed take advantage of her extremely vulnerable state.
It was very clear that the defendant needed to face consequences. But he was 19 at the time of the crime and had no other criminal history. He otherwise seemed like your typical uni kid. Even had a history of volunteer work going back to long before the crime. Don't get me wrong - it was very clearly the right thing to do and was 100% necessary to provide justice for the victim, but it was still very difficult to stand up there and tell a guy in his early 20s that he's going to jail for half a decade or more. Yes, he deserved it, but it felt more like watching further tragedy unfold as a result of his crime, rather than some kind of satisfying resolution like in TV shows.
ChompsnRosie@reddit
Don't get me wrong, it was a horrendous set of crimes, but still knowing your words are leading to a 20+ year sentence is quite sobering.
liquidpagan@reddit
As horrible as this may sound, and considering due to the crime if there was time I wouldn't have imagined it would have been too long, but I jumped at the opportunity to read it out. Just wanted to remember the experience of being in jury duty. Sounds a little morbid now I think on it
Jamz3k@reddit
I never want to be in the position where my freedom is left up a panel of my “peers”.
Scared-One9295@reddit
Don't get caught then
Positive_Passion4817@reddit
You realise people get accused and are actually innocent don't you?
Scared-One9295@reddit
It's a joke, I'm innocent
_Rookwood_@reddit
Speak for yourself. My peers are handsome and intelligent.
loveyouronions@reddit
Oh you’d rather just one old chap who isn’t totally in touch with his common man?
ceehred@reddit
That I'd be left feeling we were judging the lawyers more than the accused and witnesses. I felt the lawyers (on both sides) were often quite the most odious people who'd come up with astonishingly delusional accusations and arguments - just to attempt to win a case, beyond the pale on several occasions, rather than helping the jury arrive at something approaching a fair deliberation. It felt like they lived in a different world to the rest of us. In one of the cases we were involved in, I also wondered about just how much information we weren't privy to. I was prompted to write a few letters of complaint, the responses to which only served to infuriate me further!
For the one more complex case I was involved in - one that took many months, I was also disgusted at the scathing comments in court towards people who wanted to excuse themselves from long service (over an above the expected two weeks), despite them mostly having quite valid reasons (IMHO).
One case did go well, though. I did feel it was mostly argued well and felt good about my decision. Just one case, in a total of five.
During a period of downtime on one case, we were invited in to review details of a trial where the jury could not come to agreement. Was no surprise to me; the slew of evidence from witnesses was all over the place (particularly timeline-wise) and nobody seemed to assist the jury. I couldn't understand how those the profession couldn't have figured this out for themselves (it was apparently a regular assignment for jurors with "time to spare"). Quite the shambles.
I also felt the environment was poor - uncomfortable to the point of distraction, and so much waiting around for only a few hours of "work" each day, while we were prevented from working in our actual paying jobs. That plus the travel time, not serving on trials in our own town courts - but in a town some distance away that mostly dealt with the larger trials.
I've done two stints of jury service now. Maybe I'm just not a good juror :-D. But they'd better not call me up for a third...
Fragrant-Prize-966@reddit
How cheap everything looked. I thought it was going to look like the Old Bailey, but it just looked liked an '80s office.
Creative-Response554@reddit
Yeah a lot of crown courts are quite new, and therefore built cheap.
I've been all over driving prison vans years ago and the Old Bailey is a very intimidating place to be, even for me working there.
Then as you say a lot look like cheap offices, some look exactly like TV sets, it's a weird mix.
Fun fact about the wigs, they never get washed. Ever. The darker/dirtier the wig, the longer the barrister has been, well, a barrister. Some younger/newer ones like to dunk theirs in tea to prematurely age them so they appear more competent than they actually are.
anabsentfriend@reddit
I gave evidence as a witness in court 1 of the old Bailey. It was quite the experience.
I also had to go through a huge throng of reporters at the entrance because of high profile cases being heard at the time.
smedsterwho@reddit
I wore my own, much bigger wig to intimidate the judge
the_topiary@reddit
Doing a Marie Antoinette. Good plan.
izbiz88@reddit (OP)
Yeah I do think it’s mad that wigs are the court place tradition they chose to keep
bs338@reddit
Unlimited biscuits!
soledadsister@reddit
How do I sign up?
Beautiful_Resolve897@reddit
How boring it is waiting to be selected and how little money they give you to do it or for lunch
East-Philosopher83@reddit
I was on on a jury where 4 defendants were on trial for a serious robbery and they were all clearly guilty in some capacity. Because 1 jury member had an issue with the majority decision on all 4 being found guilty, to secure at least 3 of them being guilty we found one of the defendants not guilty just to appease that jury member and to stop the delay in our final decision, It was a travesty.
hamstertoybox@reddit
I thought there’d be some kind of screening beforehand, but we just got led straight into the trial. I was heavily pregnant, and another juror couldn’t speak English. They realised after a couple of hours and had to restart the trial with a new group.
sara61wilson@reddit
Day 3 of the trial. Judge calls us in and says “ we are done for today, because I’m off to play golf soon”
physicistpi@reddit
Sat on a High Court case during COVID. There was the 15 of us and our jury minder in a massive but otherwise empty cinema, watching everything on the big screen. You could barely see anyone's facial features, especially me as Juror 9 in the back row of the cinema. Two rape cases, trial took a week, I wrote 60 pages of notes by the end of it. We had to deliberate over intercoms and whenever we went out for food or drinks there had to be a minder with us to make sure we weren't deliberating without the full jury there.
In the end, came back as two guilty verdicts, though it was nearly a not proven and a guilty.
Perfect_Pudding8900@reddit
Whenever they have to read out transcripts, they don't censor it at all.
Lawyers in wigs reading out "did you say "I'm going to fucking knife you, you cunt"". In a clipped English accent was quite bizarre.
TheOldGodsnTheNew@reddit
I was massively taken aback by a quote like this that the lawyer read out. I was so close to cracking up, made worse by the fact I did mine during covid in a cinema, so had a camera zoomed in on my face.
The quote was also of a sexual nature so it'd have been even more inappropriate.
CthulhusEvilTwin@reddit
The boredom and how short some of the days were. As soon as a point of law was called, our judge kept dismissing us until the next day. Also, your peers are fucking morons.
robinscotland@reddit
I was surprised by how good the catering was (at least at Kirkcaldy Sheriff Court). We got a decent menu to choose from. Admittedly all cold food, but good quality.
Eskarina_W@reddit
When James McEvoy walked into the room. I was about to say hi because I knew I knew him from somewhere, until I realised who he was so left him alone. I just never thought about famous people joining in though of course they should.
jack_watson97@reddit
How fucking dull the entire thing is
jryeaman@reddit
I was surprised at how poor detective constable with years of service was at giving evidence and answering what appeared to me anyway to be straight forward questions.
ForwardAnywhere6931@reddit
I was a juror at the Old Bailey. Thought the trial I felt a weight of responsibility on my shoulders and it was a significant experience for me.
The weird thing is for everyone else there, the judge, barristers, ushers, etc, this is just their day to day job. It felt very procedural and mundane compared to how I imagined.
Also really weird being able to pick out journalists in the gallery who are there everyday. Didn't expect that!
Brilliant-Figure-149@reddit
I've done it three times, although I only actually got into the courtroom the first two times. There is an awful lot of sitting around wondering if you'll be selected then being sent home if not.
But most importantly it's called Jury SERVICE (not "duty").
izbiz88@reddit (OP)
Sorry! 😂
Oscarwild31@reddit
During my dury service we were kept in a separate room until chosen for a case, they were very strict that we didn't mix with the public or potential defendents (or followers/family) etc, we had to be escorted to the toilet so as not to be compromised. Then at lunch time everyone was all in the local sandwich shop, defendents, their families, solicitors & even a judge! Madness.
ServerLost@reddit
Absolutely nobody is grateful that you turned up. Like i wasn't expecting a parade but I wasted a lot of time and money on 4 pointless days of waiting around and nobody even said thank you. Far as I understand it I'm still on the hook to serve again, that letter's going in the bin if it ever comes i tried my best already.
anchoredwunderlust@reddit
Honestly? How hard it actually was to work out time off and wages etc. because like doctors appointments and all sorts they really base their advice around people who do waged work and have much the same rota a week. They don’t really help much with people who might work different hours different weeks and don’t have a rota well in advance that they can send in.
catninjaambush@reddit
I was surprised that every time you go into the deliberation room you have to do the Thriller dance routine.
Northerlies@reddit
I was surprised at how ill-prepared the prosecutors seemed, how flimsy one of the cases was - the prosecutor stopped mid sentence and said 'I am sorry My Lord, I cannot continue with this case', and at how diligent all members of the jury were in considering the cases before us. That aside, I was also surpised that I managed to defer my service from my busiest time of the year to the quietest. I took an earnings hit but nothing like what I would have lost had they refused.
pletro78@reddit
Not so much a part of the process that is common across the board but more a total freak event.
Pre selection we went into the court room and sat in the assigned general area - in no particular order. They went through the selection process of jurors, called out a name and it was a woman at the aisle end of our row, so off she went to the juror section.
Next name out of the hat was the bloke who was sitting next to her - off he went. Next name was the woman in the next seat to the guy who had just been picked. I casually joked with the bloke to my right that it’d be me next…… it was! We shared a wee chuckle and as I got up to leave, I said to him I’ll see him in the juror section in 2 minutes because he’ll be next. And yes, he got picked out of the hat.
Our entire row was picked in reverse order of how we sat down!
Deep_Top8433@reddit
The mathematical probability of that happening is insane!
RhubarbSalty3588@reddit
The memories are flooding back with these comments. There was a fellow Juror who was clearly a heavy smoker. When we were in the court room after only a few minutes she would become extremely agitated,often drawing the attention of the rest of the room. When we’re back in the deliberation room she would press the emergency button and ask to leave the room for a smoke literally every 10minutes,which she was allowed to do,and we was not allowed to deliberate without her in the room. When she would return we would ask her opinion,and she would just shrug and say il go along with what the rest think…..
Financial-Scar1683@reddit
I found it quite surprising that the juror next to me was such a heavy smoker that I almost threw up during sentencing from the smell
which would've been particularly awkward given that it was a murder trial
BoopingBurrito@reddit
I did Coroners Jury, so its a little bit different than a criminal court.
I was surprised at how...absolutely nothing was explained to us, about the case, about the process, about what to expect. Nothing. I assume its to avoid any potential for bias, but we were really left to pick things up as we went along with things only being explained when they became relevant (ie we were allowed to ask questions of witnesses which is super weird if you've never seen a coroners jury in action, not something you'd expect from general public knowledge of juries).
Also I was surprised at how many folk on the jury were getting financially screwed by being there. Half the room was being paid the court allowance from day 1, and most of the rest got the 1st day fully paid by their work then went onto the court allowance for the rest of the hearing. It was literally just myself and one other person who were getting paid in full for the whole hearing.
And probably explained by that, but still surprising to me...how few folk were actually interested or engaged in the process. It was quite an interesting case from both a medical and an ethical perspective, although very sad from a personal perspective. But half the jury had no interest in properly understanding the evidence, in discussing any aspect of it, and all they wanted to do was get out of the jury room as quickly as possible.
Distinct-Quantity-46@reddit
I’ve just been a witness at coroners court today with a jury (I’m a medical professional) I’ve been there the last 2 days and I have to say the jury for this inquest were fully invested, engaged and have asked plenty of questions of the witnesses over the last couple of days (although they didn’t ask me any questions)
MikeOne29@reddit
How low the threshold was for the judge to decide to take a break or pull in a new jury or delay things until tomorrow.
How some of the people in the dock weren't exactly bad people but had clearly just made a really bad decision at one point in their life to result in them being arrested and taken to court etc etc.
How must more evidence you get as a juror compared to what is reported in the news. When you get high profile cases and journalists tweeting updates or whatever having done Jury Duty you'll be able to tell that there is so much more context to trials that the Jury are privy to and the general public/news not aware about.
eelam_garek@reddit
They lock you in a room while you deliberate and have to press a buzzer to be let out again.
ashyjay@reddit
The annoying part is not knowing if you'll be called or not, and you still have to present in the mornings, and it's a nightmare if you work a fair distance from the court, so if you have to work during it you become a bit of a nightmare as no one can plan around you being there or not.
firemaster94@reddit
In Edinburgh you just call a number the night before and an automated voice tells you if you have to turn up or not. I was on hold for about a week and a half and wasn't needed.
Winston_Carbuncle@reddit
Surely just plan for you to not be there
SelfSufficientHub@reddit
That sounds fine until the employer finds out they are there and has to pay them. Not all workplaces can be flexible with how many productive staff can be incorporated without planning.
angrytapes@reddit
I was surprised when we got to the deliberation part most of them didn't speak or seem to give a single fuck.
TippyTurtley@reddit
That I'd be called for such a horrific case that sticks with me to this day
Bubble-Master96@reddit
Me too. I think about the poor woman victim standing giving her statement, and the way the defence berated her so badly that the judge had to step in. Was a harrowing experiences.
PumpkinJambo@reddit
I think about the case I served on the jury for all the time. It was in 2017 but I don’t think I’ll ever forget it.
TippyTurtley@reddit
I hope you find peace.
Xivii@reddit
How filthy and broken the building was. That one possibly shouldn’t have surprised me…
How long it took to get called. I got a whole week sat in a room doing nothing but chatting.
The law. There were parts of the law that aren’t actually the law, it’s just common belief it is. That had quite a few of us shocked that this was even a trial as the defendant admitted to what we all thought the crime was in front of us.
I was on a really good jury. No bullying, and everyone was given time and space to share their thoughts. It might have helped that the defendants were utterly stupid and I can’t see how we could have found them anything but guilty, so we were pretty much unanimous from the start. Think we were done inside an hour as we had a late start as the printer wasn’t working, and I was on the bus home by 1pm.
Zestyclose-Turn-3576@reddit
We were all dismissed after a couple of hours, as the judge spotted in the evidence that a much more serious crime had been committed than the accused had been charged with. Sounded like a complete screw-up.
I found the evidence impossible to make sense of though. All the events were presented in some random order ... couldn't make head or tail of it all.
JBB2002902@reddit
That I was allowed to take my handbag into the courtroom! I thought we’d leave them in the jurors deliberation room or something, but we were told to just take them with us into court.
Creative-Response554@reddit
Only the accused and the officers can't have any contraband with them, and even then the officers only can't because the accuseds might get ahold of it.
Off bailers (ones who come in from bail, rather than remand to prisons/just arrested from police stations) have to give up their property as well, partly because it makes it easy if they're convicted since their stuff is already bagged but also partly because once you step inside the dock, it's locked and you're in the custody of the court. If you're in the dock you're not a free person at that moment.
smoulderstoat@reddit
A lot of dodgy people in courts.
pafrac@reddit
The lawyers are the least of it.
ReflexArch@reddit
So much waiting around.
-C80-@reddit
I was going to say this! The whole process seemed so inefficient.
LegoNinja11@reddit
The judges sentencing statement and the simplicity of the legal tests.
You work through loads of evidence deciding what's trust worthy and supported vs the guff made up by the witnesses and then the judge reads out his statement ...." You did X and Y and Z" while the jury sits back knowing X was enough to be guilty and we threw out Y and Z.
Also the legal test at the end that you're expected to assess the evidence against is often relatively simple. But they never tell you at the start what the tests are.
Superb-Ad-8823@reddit
Fortunately I had a couple of pints in the company of defence solicitor so was excused. Also he was a pal of a pal and heard stories about what they got up to in their youth.
hiking_n_stuff@reddit
How numbingly boring it was. Either waiting to be picked as a juror or listening to evidence on some cases. (The cases were technical and not violent)
Then flipped to not boring when it was a case where it was a serious matter. I was a foreman on one of them and it felt really surreal passing judgement
blueyonderbear@reddit
While waiting in the jury pool, the instant under breath ripple of ‘guilty’ when the accused was brought out.
That no one told you fact one of what was going on.
Evening-Web-3038@reddit
I suppose it surprised me a bit that the defendants had a clear view of us all lol. One of them glared at us the whole time haha, god knows why though because it made him look like the type of person who'd get in trouble with the law (not an impression you want to give off during your court hearing!).
damianvandoom@reddit
Less the process, but more the sudden realisation that the decision you come to is going impact many people in different ways.
AutoModerator@reddit
Please help keep AskUK welcoming!
When replying to submission/post please make genuine efforts to answer the question given. Please no jokes, judgements, etc. If a post is marked 'Serious Answers Only' you may receive a ban for violating this rule.
Don't be a dick to each other. If getting heated, just block and move on.
This is a strictly no-politics subreddit!
Please help us by reporting comments that break these rules.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.