Cycling UK Forum

...is someone responsible for thier actions?
After hearing the story of a 19year old called to jury service,who then bunked off(obviously thought he was still at school)to go and see a show,surprise,surprise,when he was found out and is currently serving 14days in a young offender's unit.
Discuss?

Old enough to vote, get married, join the armed forces, then old enough for jury service.

This whole story is just about someone not willing to accept the consequences of his actions. His mother is no better. (assuming the attributed quotes are accurate)

"Miss Ennis, who said her son was quiet and shy, tried to convince him not to do the jury service because he had just moved to Manchester to study French and was not settling in well. ‘I asked him not to do it,’ said Miss Ennis from Rugeley, Staffordshire."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z1hGxII5sw


If any of my children had told me they were going to lie to the court so they could go to the theatre instead I'd have told them they were being incredibly stupid and that like it or not doing jury duty is their responsibility as a citizen.

legally, 8 in Scotland. Though they can't be prosecuted... it would, generally, go through the Children's Hearing anyway. Suprised that he is in a young offender's unit, but then that's not quite so bad.

Assuming the quotes are accurate, I can't really fathom why he thought it would be OK - I'm pretty sure there's a line in the letter that calls you up that explicitly says to contact them, or else they're perverting the course of justice, or an equivalent line...

Several contributing forces here:

One is probably the healthy growth in people's belief in their own rights, but without a proper understanding of what they are, especially at the point of transition from the playground to being out with the big misters;

then, a strong reluctance over most of the last forty or so years to take punitive action against young offenders, with occasional but brief lurches in the other direction, so that punitive action comes as a surprise;

last but not least, a feeling among the legal establishment that anything which remotely upsets the legal applecart requires nipping in the bud.

Hector's House wrote:legally, 8 in Scotland. Though they can't be prosecuted... it would, generally, go through the Children's Hearing anyway. Suprised that he is in a young offender's unit, but then that's not quite so bad.

Assuming the quotes are accurate, I can't really fathom why he thought it would be OK - I'm pretty sure there's a line in the letter that calls you up that explicitly says to contact them, or else they're perverting the course of justice, or an equivalent line...

He did contact them. After serving the first few days he called in sick to go to the theater.

Young offenders take criminals aged 18-21.

The sentence is not the big issue IMO. If he is a student and it is a first offense he has just closed the door on a lot of career choices. even if the job doesn't specify no PCs most employers if choosing between otherwise equal candidates won't choose the one with a criminal record.

On a procedural note, anybody called for jury service can write in and request a deferral if they give a good reason, but they normally only get one. The rules were all rejigged a few years ago and now there are no exemptions and a couple of disqualifications for mental health and certain previous convictions.

The effect of wrecking a trial like this considerable: the immediate effect is that the time of all concerned, Judge, court officials, legal representatives, witnesses, other juror's is completely wasted - even if people are (wrongly) unconcerned with the effect on the defendant. Although this trial seems to have been immediately rescheduled, that's often not possible because of the logistical problems of getting a date when everybody is available and a courtroom is vacant. It's almost certain that a so-called "floating" trial will have been delayed to make room for this one.

Some newspapers love this kind of thing, of course, but the effect is that the defendant's ma seems to be lapping it up. I could imagine somebody like Judge Pickles "inviting" her in for an apparaisal of her attitude to the court.

thirdcrank wrote:The effect of wrecking a trial like this considerable: the immediate effect is that the time of all concerned, Judge, court officials, legal representatives, witnesses, other juror's is completely wasted .

Quite. Other than being illegal it shows a total lack of consideration for others. I find that to be quite a common character flaw in criminals.

Playing devils advocate here, one could argue that someone who shows this lack of civic duty and irresponsible selfishnesss should, on no account ever be allowed to sit on a jury.

Alan D wrote:Playing devils advocate here, one could argue that someone who shows this lack of civic duty and irresponsible selfishnesss should, on no account ever be allowed to sit on a jury.

If that was the punishment there'd be irresponsible jurers bunking off on a regular basis.

thirdcrank wrote:Several contributing forces here:

One is probably the healthy growth in people's belief in their own rights, but without a proper understanding of what they are, especially at the point of transition from the playground to being out with the big misters;

then, a strong reluctance over most of the last forty or so years to take punitive action against young offenders, with occasional but brief lurches in the other direction, so that punitive action comes as a surprise;

last but not least, a feeling among the legal establishment that anything which remotely upsets the legal applecart requires nipping in the bud.

The problem is everyone is into enforcing their rights without any of the responsibilities that come with them. He deserves the 14 days, for being stupid if nothing else.

This is bringing back some memories when I was called for jury service last February, after a lifetime of being disqualified. The summons said for 0900 prompt, so following the habits of a lifetime, I was there at 0840 queing outside in the rain.

Once everybody was inside, we eventually had a briefing about what it involved and all the admin about expenses. Jurors are called for a basic fortnight service, with a new group starting each Monday. Those who had been there a week bagged most of the comfy chairs and all the timid newcomers were in the other room (cafeteria) joined to the lounge part by a bit of a corridor. The briefing was presented - partly using a TV screen to show a film about jury service - in the lounge part, so all we heard was brief snatches of somebody rambling on with no enthusiasm repeating the same old stuff he spouted every Monday. Being pretty familiar with the court rigmarole, I had no doubt about how seriously things would be taken and I would assume even without that, most people would be the same, but the only thing I remember hearing which might have brought it home to anybody who thought it was all a bit naff, was one of the ushers who escorted us to court explaining the importance of being there. She said something along the lines of "Once you have been sworn in, for some historic reason, the defendant is in your custody until you have delivered a verdict. The judge will take a dim view of anybody who isn't there so don't even bob out to the shops unless somebody says it is OK."

byegad wrote:The problem is everyone is into enforcing their rights without any of the responsibilities that come with them. He deserves the 14 days, for being stupid if nothing else.

I agree,the complete lack of responsibility of people in our anonimous society is quite staggering,we really are on the slide IMO.

Talking of Jury Service, here's an interesting question.
The defence / defendant can object to any member of the jury if they don't like the look of them and any member of the jury has to declare if they know or know of the defendant so as not to prejudice a fair trial.
There is no mechanism the other way, for excmple if it is a serious case, murder, rape or fraud that could go on for several weeks, theoretically, a juror who could be relatively young with limited life experiences could feel out of their depth in such a case. There is no mechanism by which the individual juror could say "I don't wish to be on the jury for this case because it is too serious for me."
I'm sure that there are jurys where one or more members are uncomfortable with the case and would rather not be there.
I was on jury service 15 years ago, something that I was always looking forward to, when it actually happened, I hated every minute of it and it is an experience that I don't wish to repeat.

wrangler_rover

The first bit of your post is no longer correct. The defence no longer has the right of peremptory challenge (AKA objecting to anybody they don't like the look of.) They may now only challenge "for cause" ie because they have a good reason to believe a particular juror to be unsuitable. The prosecution retains the right to require that a prospective juror should "stand by for the Crown" which rules them out. The judge can also decide that there are a reasons for not accepting a juror. This places a particular responsibility on the prosecutor who is the only one to be able to ensure that everything is kosher. The guidance to crown prosecutors in this link, explains to prosecutors how to discharge that responsibility.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/jury_vetting/#an01

I fancy that many people have reasons for not wanting to serve on a jury, including the one you mention. The relatively recent changes to the rules mean that few people can avoid jury service. As a retired police officer, I felt that it was inherently wrong for me to be on a jury, and after I had announced four "Guilty" verdicts in my capacity as foreman, I still felt that most people would feel it was wrong, even though I know that I tried my utmost to be scrupulously fair. (My suggestion would be that people with a background in the criminal law could be called in civil cases, but who am I to say?) On a practical note, I was concerned that several days into a case I would recognise a prosecution witness as a former colleague but that didn't happen. If I had recognised the defendant, I could of course have mentioned it from the outset.

In particularly harrowing cases, the judge sometimes exempts the jury from further service, forever, or a specified period. In thanks to the jury in the Shipman trial, the judge said something along the lines that so far as it was in his power he was directing that they never need perform jury service again, adding that they would remain eligible, if they so wished.

Old enough for jury service yet gets bunged in a young offenders unit? Manchester beaks getting soft?