Jury Service

[Cooling]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

why is a 'magistrate' better than a juror exactly?

They can stamp things

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Cooling

They can stamp things

they can't and don't.

next one?

(btw when dear tomkat get's emotional like this it is often best not to get in his way. sissy fits and all.)

[Cooling]

Are you proposing they are incapable of even that?

I had such high hopes for the Justice system

Dashed.

(take risks, goodness knows why)

[Tomkat]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

why is a 'magistrate' better than a juror exactly?

Answer my question.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

Answer my question.

because of your bad impersonation of jeremy paxman i suppose i must

a magistrate is no better than a jury member (i'd say juror normally, but best not to confuse you) because they are both volunteers.

neither have legal training.

the only difference between having magistrates instead of jurors (oops) is that you get fewer off them.

so if you get one spastic jury member, the other 11 can ignore him. if you get one spastic magistrate it's far worse. if you get two spastic jury members, the other 10 can ignore him .... you get the idea

what's even worse about magistrates is that they choose to volunteer.

ie. they are busy bodies with too much time on their hands. if they were normal people they'd be invited to parties or have jobs.

jury members get no choice. hence you get better people.

P.S. the only time you get 2 magistrates and a judge sitting together is on appeals against conviction for summary or either way offences. when this happens (rarely) the magistrates do what the judge (an HHJ) tells them to do. An appeal from a jury offence goes to the court of appeal and is heard by 1 Lord justice and 2 Mr Justices. ie. the big boys.

P.P.S. magistrates are a cost saving exercise. juries actually work. and given that i've appeared in front of them and watched a lot from the other side too, you're going to have to accept that.

[Black Dog]

Jury service involves convincing 3 very irate women that "if a woman is willing to go to court to accuse some guy of rape she must telling the truth" probably isn't the best basis on which to ruin someone's life.

If you have any doubts about mankind's ability to put forward a rational, unbiased, coherent and cogent argument then jury service will probably push you over the edge into a spiral of despair at the number of crazy eejits that live next door to you on your beautiful suburban terrace.

They do serve the most wonderful cottage pies though.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Black Dog

If you have any doubts about mankind's ability to put forward a rational, unbiased, coherent and cogent argument then jury service will probably push you over the edge

i'm flattered

Originally Posted by Black Dog

They do serve the most wonderful cottage pies though.

guildford crown serves corned beef and brown sauce as sandwiches.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

Why on earth is having a bunch of schmucks with no legal knowledge on "jury service" better than having a judge and two magistrates decide somebody's fate?

Why would they need previous legal knowledge? If there is some obscure legal point that needs ruling on then that's what the judge is there for.

Almost all issues can be put into terms (either by the prosecution/defence or by the judge) that the "common man" can comprehend. If there is some specific types of case which defies the understanding of everything but experts (e.g. really complex fraud cases or something) then that might be different but in a murder case of "Do you think this bloke did it, based on this evidence" your judgement is not going to be made any better by more/less education.

The best thing about the jury service is that you are being judged by your peers. You may find it disgusting that people in Woolworths get to have a say on anything, but personally I'd prefer "ordinary" people ruling on me rather than judges/magistrates who are much more likely to be from select economic/cultural backgrounds.

[Radical Edward]

how much of the legal system is explained to people who do jury service? I admit to barely knowing anything about it at all, and I would be a bit concerned about passing any kind of judgement on people if I still knew so little.

[djbass]

I don't know either, but I would imagine very little, simply for the fact that the jury does not need to know much about law anyway. They are there to pass judgement based on the evidence presented.

The jury exists only as a means of giving an unbiased representation of the community as a whole. Seeing as you can't fit the entire population of a country or state into a court room, they take a randomly drawn 'slice' of that population.

It is as someone said earlier a means of keeping the laws in check with what society deems approriate. It stems from the fact that laws originate from society in the first place, the government and each branch of power are only there to enforce the laws that we make.

To be honest though it's a hard concept to explain properly, it helps to at least to be familer with the concept of Separation Of Powers

[Radical Edward]

I don't mean the law as such, just the system. I suppose it would be easy enough to just present the charge, and then decide innocence or guilt based purely on that charge without knowing much else. maybe I could go into the public gallery sometime when there is a trial on.

[G.K Zhukov]

Speaking of the devil, I jus got called up for four days in august.

[Black Dog]

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

I don't mean the law as such, just the system. I suppose it would be easy enough to just present the charge, and then decide innocence or guilt based purely on that charge without knowing much else. maybe I could go into the public gallery sometime when there is a trial on.

Just law other than the odd sentence explaining how the system works when it is relevant (like police practice). As I'm guessing you all know the judge in his summing up directs the jury as to how they can come to reach a decision eg. the key points of evidence, the weight of that evidence, the standard of proof and the definitions of each charge.

There's more than enough information being thrown at people and cases take long enough as it is without crash course 101 in the Crown Court system.

On the other hand it would be very useful since a lot of people on my juries had very reactionary opinions based on almost no experience. One woman tried to argue that she didn't think a defendant looked gay and also didn't trust the British Asylum system when they let him into the country as a person persecuted for being a homosexual in his native country (rather important since this was a rape case). She had no idea what the criteria were for entry other than a few Daily Mail catchphrases.

I dread to think what British juries were like before 2005 and the dawn of the wonderfully smug know-all lawyer on the jury panel.

[pig]

Ok I Just spoke to the Jury people and explained my situation. They said that I need to defer to next summer just in case the case last for longer than two weeks. So looks like I wont be doing jury service until next summer :/

[Radical Edward]

Originally Posted by Black Dog

Just law other than the odd sentence explaining how the system works when it is relevant (like police practice). As I'm guessing you all know the judge in his summing up directs the jury as to how they can come to reach a decision eg. the key points of evidence, the weight of that evidence, the standard of proof and the definitions of each charge.

what sort of direction can the Judge give, and what sort of influence can he put on say, particular pieces of evidence and so on?

<snip interesting stuff>

I dread to think what British juries were like before 2005 and the dawn of the wonderfully smug know-all lawyer on the jury panel.

I didn't know about this new change. does the lawyer also vote on the verdict, or is he simply there to actually talk about the evidence with the other jurors?

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

what sort of direction can the Judge give, and what sort of influence can he put on say, particular pieces of evidence and so on?

the judge gives directions on the law. these directions are something the jury must follow.

the judge will also, if the trial lasts for more than 3 or 4 days, summarise the evidence (the amount of detail he puts in depends on how long the trial has lasted). this summary is not binding on the jury.

the jury are told the difference through out the trial eg. "you are the judges of fact ladies and gentlemen, I am the judge of the law"

and my personal faveourite "I am now going to read to you some notes I took from the witnesses. Please remember, these are just my notes. If I mention a piece of evidence that you do not think is relevant then you must discount it. If I appear to express an opinion or to put more importance on a particular event then you are free to disagree with me"

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

I didn't know about this new change. does the lawyer also vote on the verdict, or is he simply there to actually talk about the evidence with the other jurors?

lawyers are no longer exempt from jury service.
this is very silly and very unpopular with the self employed bar.

[Judge]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

lawyers are no longer exempt from jury service.
this is very silly and very unpopular with the self employed bar.

I dont accept that a Lawyer (Solicitor or a member of the Bar) should be exempt from service purely on the basis of their proffesion, yes if they have a vested interest, or are a known advocate in a particular court, but they should not be excluded from serving outside of their known area of work, ie: a London based solicitor could reasonably serve at Guildford.

I am guessing (wildly) that the unpopularity is due to loss of earnings?

There are a lot more people who work on a self employed basis than solicitors and barristers, I for one would lose around £800 to £1000 per week if I were to be called for Jury service, so therefore would probably claim insanity, or declare that I am a gay bashing ex-nazi party member with a leaning towards dressing up in leather studded underwear.

edited spelling and grammer

[Radical Edward]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

the judge gives directions on the law. these directions are something the jury must follow.

the judge will also, if the trial lasts for more than 3 or 4 days, summarise the evidence (the amount of detail he puts in depends on how long the trial has lasted). this summary is not binding on the jury.

the jury are told the difference through out the trial eg. "you are the judges of fact ladies and gentlemen, I am the judge of the law"

and my personal faveourite "I am now going to read to you some notes I took from the witnesses. Please remember, these are just my notes. If I mention a piece of evidence that you do not think is relevant then you must discount it. If I appear to express an opinion or to put more importance on a particular event then you are free to disagree with me"

ok, so would I me right in saying that the judge decides on the legal relevance of things, and the jury decides on whether the legally relevant facts are relevant to the charge?

lawyers are no longer exempt from jury service.
this is very silly and very unpopular with the self employed bar.

oh I see, I got the impression that there was a lawyer put on every jury now or something. sorry about that. why is it silly though?

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

ok, so would I me right in saying that the judge decides on the legal relevance of things, and the jury decides on whether the legally relevant facts are relevant to the charge?

the judge will deal with any points of law that arise during the trial. the jury won't be in the courtroom at this time.
at the end of the trial the judge directs the jury on what the law is: say a burglary case the judge will say "well ladies and gentlemen burglary in law has two elements tresspass, which is (etc. etc.)"
if some inadmissable evidence has accidentally come before the jury (but not enough to cause a retrial) say the victim in a burglary has said that the defendant's girlfriend is a slapper; in that case the judge will tell the jury as a matter of law that they can't think about that when considering the defendant's guilt.

other than that the jury gets to decide who it believes is telling the truth.
there are other directions the judge can give but this is the basics.

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

oh I see, I got the impression that there was a lawyer put on every jury now or something. sorry about that. why is it silly though?

it's silly because it's annoying and dangerous.
dangerous:
1) the lawyer may hold sway over the other members of the jury
2) the lawyer may have professional or personal axes to grind
3) the lawyer might speculate on what is going on when the jury are asked to retire. it's important in trials that juries are kept ignorant of some things to avoid prejudicing them. a lawyer risks there innocence if you like.

annoying:
1) barristers are self employed. if they don't work for 2 weeks they don't get any money
2) barristers need to be available when solicitors need them or the solicitors might start using another barrister.

[dda]

In the US, judges almost never comment on the evidence.

Attorneys are not exempt from jury duty, however, I know of very few attorneys who would feel comfortable having another attorney on his/her jury for the reasons stated in Yahwe's post as "dangerous." In fact, I excuse anyone who even works in a law office.

Additionally, a juror can be excused for hardship. A person would not be expected to sit on a jury for more than a day or two if he/she wasn't being paid by their employer to be there. Self-employed people, therefore, almost never are represented on American juries. A shame.

[Cooling]

Lawyers are exempt from jury service in New Zealand for the reasons Yawhe has given, it is thought that their influence on a jury would be disproportionate and unprincipled. I dont imagine Lawyers wish to avoid jury service simply because of the monotony of it, they recognise the risks. Judges are there to advise on the law not rogue quasi-judicial lawyers on jury power trips (the extreme case).

Incidentally what is the logic behind seperating the role of the Solicitor from that of the Barrister? Specialisation? Or is that simply "the way it is done"?

[dda]

I forgot to mention, in California, judges are not exempt from jury duty either. However, police officers are exempt.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Cooling

Incidentally what is the logic behind seperating the role of the Solicitor from that of the Barrister? Specialisation? Or is that simply "the way it is done"?

quality.

[Cooling]

That is understood, yet in other jurisdictions one can be both. Indeed anyone 'here' who decides to be a Barrister Sole is deemed cognitivly deficient.

To clarify, the reason for the distinction; not the properties of one or the other was my question.

[dda]

Is it a decision that each new lawyer makes for himself or are there particular requirements for one to become a barrister. I assume that there are fewer barristers than solicitors.

[Yahwe]

there are about 8,000 barristers in the country. millions of solicitors. they're just lesser lawyers. they do small stuff, paperwork, day to day kind of law.

we just argue cases in court or give expert advice.

[dda]

But how is the sorting done? Is there a test that one must take to be a barrister as opposed to being a solicitor? Does one have to graduate at a high level from law school to be allowed? I accept the superiority of barristers as opposed to solicitors but how do you prove yourself in order to be allowed to be a barrister?

[Cooling]

There is a great deal that is required beyond simply obtaining an LLB from a university with at least a 2:1. One must then take a vocational course in addition to joining one of the Inn's of Court (there are four).

Yahwe may wish to explain further how one 'keeps terms' with ones Inn at this stage.

Following being called to the Bar you must seek tenency in Chambers in order to obtain pupillage. There are very few spaces available. Essentially this is an apprenticeship where one spends a year under the wing of one, or often two experienced Barristers.

Following that you must find tenancy as a Barrister in Chambers and lo you are now a member of a very special club.

That is a very rough caricature of the entire process, I am not sure exactly as to how long it takes but it is far from easy.

It leaves me quite sad. The requirements for being admitted to the bar in my case can be completed in four years without difficulty. The lack of distinction leaves every new lawyer equally deficient in the court room. Though it is nessecary in order to have enough lawyers to take court cases; were such a system to be imposed here the courtyards would be deserted.

[dda]

Cooling, what country, state or whatever, do you live in?

[Cooling]

New Zealand

Things are slightly less civilized in the colonies.

[dda]

I like to think of it as more egalitarian.
One of the attorneys in my office is from New Zealand. His parents still live in Wellington, I beleive.

[Radical Edward]

I'm enjoying this thread, thanks to all that have contributed more than my silly questions