• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Jury Service

Jaggy Bunnet

Philosopher
J
Joined
May 16, 2003
Messages
6,241
Having recently been notified that I may be called up for jury service, I have been reading the various material provided and came across the list of those who have the right to refuse to serve as a juror. In Scotland, the list is:

Politicians (Members of Parliament - Westminster, Scotland or Wales - Members of the House of Lords, specified other public offices)

Members of the Armed Forces

Medical & similar professionals (Medical practitioners, dentists, nurses, midwives, pharmaceutical chemists, veterinary surgeons and veterinary practitioners)

Members of certain religious bodies (the tenets of whose belief is incompatible with jury service)

Ministers of religion

Those who have served on a jury within the previous five years or who have been excused for a longer period (after particularly long/gruesome cases the judge may excuse the jury members from serving again for a longer period than the standard five years).

In addition there are a number of categories of those who CANNOT sit on a jury:

The judiciary

Others involved in administering justice (advocates, police officers, parole board members etc)

The mentally disordered.

Convicted criminals sentenced to three months imprisonment or more.

Persons on bail.

Short of suddenly discovering that I believed in a religion that is incompatible with jury service, I don't fall under any of them but they did spark of some questions:

Who SHOULD be prevented from sitting on juries?

The list above looked OK to me with the exception of politicians who I think should be on the list of those who cannot be members rather than simply having a right to refuse in order to ensure full segregation between those responsible for making legislation and those responsible for applying that legislation. I doubt this is much of a practical issue as I suspect politicians would exercise their right not to serve.

Do similar exclusions exist in other jursidictions, and if so how do they differ?

Who should have the RIGHT to exclude themselves for jury service and why?

I disagree that holding religious beliefs or office should grant any special rights.

I would also question the list of excluded professions - why should a vet be able to opt out but not a teacher? A dentist but not a farmer?

And finally, as a long shot, does anyone know how the exclusions, especially the excluded professions, came about?

I assume that originally that Doctors were excluded but this gradually widened to related professions. Still confused as to how vets get in!
 
Last edited:
There have been various attempts to use police officers on juries locally, the city of St. Louis sends out notifications frequently. This may be due to the comparatively low percentage of "qualified" jurists in the city...
Prosecutors have expressed that they'd love to have officers on the jury, as they "understand the elements of the law". Of course, they tend to be somewhat biased, which leads to almost immediate exclusion in the voir dire process....

I know some officers who nonetheless have served on civil trials.

St. Louis county lists "being married to a law enforcement officer" as one of the reasons for exclusion.
 
Professor Yaffle said:
Here's some opinion on the mental disorder exclusion:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/mar/07/socialcare.guardiansocietysupplement1
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/jun/04/mentalhealth.clareallan
http://www.rethink.org/how_we_can_h...ange/breaking_down_the_wall/jury_service.html
http://www.rethink.org/how_we_can_h...breaking_down_the_wall/jury_service_what.html
Click to expand...

Thanks for these, they are interesting.

It assume that the articles deal with the situation in England (and I guess possibly in Wales?). Certainly the restrictions referred to in the first article appear to be much stricter than the restrictions in Scotland.

The article refers to four mental health grounds which disqualify an individual:

Being in hospital (presumably only if the treatment is related to mental health);
Being in guardianship under the Mental Health Act;
If a judge has found them incapable of managing their affairs; or
If they regularly visit a medical practitioner for treatment.

The last one apparently is wide enough to include someone who is seen quarterly by a psychiatrist and gets prescriptions from her doctor.

In Scotland there are three grounds:

Persons receiving medical treatment for mental disorder who are resident in a hospital for that treatment;
Persons receiving medical treatment for mental disorder who attend for more than one day each week to receive that treatment; or
Persons subject to guardianship under the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act.

So it would seem that the person writing the articles, who is not qualified to sit on an English jury, would be qualified to sit on one in Scotland.

[Edited to add: Regularly is just totally the WRONG test to apply here. Who cares with what regularity someone gets treatment? As drafted it would exclude someone with a well managed, well controlled condition who has a regular annual check up for 10 minutes with a mental health professional but not someone who has frequent but irregular meetings because their condition is badly controlled.]
 
Last edited:
I got called for jury service once and went along happily, even buying some new rope on the way, only to find when I got allocated to a case that my aunt was the presiding judge and didn't want me in there. Seems she'd already brought her own rope.
 
Jaggy Bunnet said:
Convicted criminals sentenced to three months imprisonment or more.
Click to expand...
Is there a good reason why in respect of this one?

ETA--This reminded me of the IPS requirement that whoever certifies the photo on a passport application must be of "professional standing in the community" or something. As though somebody on income support cannot be assumed to speak the truth.
 
Last edited:
Jaggy Bunnet said:
I would also question the list of excluded professions - why should a vet be able to opt out but not a teacher? A dentist but not a farmer?
Click to expand...

I wonder if it's the similar to the schedule of reserved occupations from the war? Certainly I recognise dentists from that list. I suppose a school is able to find cover for a teacher relatively easily, and a farm is likely to have a number of workers on it to spread the workload; a vet or a dentist may not find it so straightforward.

Incidentally, the space between me getting the letter about being liable for jury service and actually getting called for jury service was about 2 weeks, so brace yourself ;)
 
Last edited:
I would have probably enjoyed the ten 10am-4pm days I spent listening to almost but not quite entirely irrelevant detail over and over (and the hour and a half of deliberation before returning a verdict), had I not been required to visit my office for an additional 8 hours or so either side of CPS working hours.
 
Here in America, nobody smart enough to participate on this forum is ever allowed to sit on a jury. The defense will exclude us. They want emotional folks, not intellectuals.

I toss my notices into the bin. And will continue to, unless the system changes to eliminate jury selection other than by random lot. I'll put myself into a random pool, since as a random member, we would all be 'peers'. Once selection bias is introduced, we could no longer be considered peers.

And if I was a defendant, I wouldn't want to be judged by people who are not smart enough to get out of jury duty.

In California, there are no professional exclusions. Except that no defense lawyer would permit most of those listed above on his jury.
 
Francesca R said:
Is there a good reason why in respect of this one?

ETA--This reminded me of the IPS requirement that whoever certifies the photo on a passport application must be of "professional standing in the community" or something. As though somebody on income support cannot be assumed to speak the truth.
Click to expand...

I was abbreviating slightly. The actual restriction is:

Those who have been sentenced to imprisonment for life or more than 5 years or during her Majesty's pleasure; and

Those who have been sentenced to imprisonment for more than three months or have been detained in a borstal institution and who are not "rehabilitated persons" under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.

To become a rehabilitated person you appear to have to not have any further convictions for a specified period (length varying with length of original sentence).

So I guess the reason is that the rule is there to ensure that only those who have demonstrated they accept the rule of law are qualified to participate in the application of those laws. Whether that is "good" or not is certainly open to debate.
 
Jaggy Bunnet said:
I would also question the list of excluded professions - why should a vet be able to opt out but not a teacher? A dentist but not a farmer?
Click to expand...

In addition to the ease of finding a temporary replacement, as noted by Richardm, there's also the consequences. If you can't find a teacher then, in the worst case, a few children get a bit less education for a few days. On the other hand, if you can't find a replacement medical practioner (human or animal), people (or animals) can end up dead. And given that there's really no such thing as a temporary replacement doctor (not on short notice for a few days at least), that's quite a big problem.
 
Jaggy Bunnet said:
I disagree that holding religious beliefs or office should grant any special rights.
Click to expand...

There are certian relgions where the follower will find the defendent inocent whatever so the pragmatic aproach is to keep them off juries.
 
richardm said:
I wonder if it's the similar to the schedule of reserved occupations from the war? Certainly I recognise dentists from that list. I suppose a school is able to find cover for a teacher relatively easily, and a farm is likely to have a number of workers on it to spread the workload; a vet or a dentist may not find it so straightforward.

Incidentally, the space between me getting the letter about being liable for jury service and actually getting called for jury service was about 2 weeks, so brace yourself ;)
Click to expand...

Interesting thought about reserved occupations, but I suspect not. From a quick google the list that I can find is very different from the right to refuse to be a juror list.

http://www.falkirk.gov.uk/about_council/news/press_item.aspx?pid=2015

"The reserved (or scheduled) occupation scheme covered five million men in a very wide range of key jobs including railway , dock and refinery workers, engineers, miners, farmers, and agricultural workers, police, teachers and doctors. "

Anyone can ask to be excused jury service due to workload issues, so I don't think that is the reason to exclude dentists and vets.
 
Bikewer said:
There have been various attempts to use police officers on juries locally, the city of St. Louis sends out notifications frequently. This may be due to the comparatively low percentage of "qualified" jurists in the city...
Prosecutors have expressed that they'd love to have officers on the jury, as they "understand the elements of the law". Of course, they tend to be somewhat biased, which leads to almost immediate exclusion in the voir dire process....

I know some officers who nonetheless have served on civil trials.

St. Louis county lists "being married to a law enforcement officer" as one of the reasons for exclusion.
Click to expand...

When I was called for jury duty, one of the first questions on my questionaire asked me if I was related to a police officer.

I think it's more than reasonable; it's very fair to assume that the family of a police officer has a much different view of the law than the family of, say, a bookkeeper and an electrician.

Also, as much as jurors are sworn to secrecy, I think they do discuss the case at home.

I know I did. :o
 
Jaggy Bunnet said:
Thanks for these, they are interesting.

It assume that the articles deal with the situation in England (and I guess possibly in Wales?). Certainly the restrictions referred to in the first article appear to be much stricter than the restrictions in Scotland.

The article refers to four mental health grounds which disqualify an individual:

Being in hospital (presumably only if the treatment is related to mental health);
Being in guardianship under the Mental Health Act;
If a judge has found them incapable of managing their affairs; or
If they regularly visit a medical practitioner for treatment.

The last one apparently is wide enough to include someone who is seen quarterly by a psychiatrist and gets prescriptions from her doctor.

In Scotland there are three grounds:

Persons receiving medical treatment for mental disorder who are resident in a hospital for that treatment;
Persons receiving medical treatment for mental disorder who attend for more than one day each week to receive that treatment; or
Persons subject to guardianship under the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act.

So it would seem that the person writing the articles, who is not qualified to sit on an English jury, would be qualified to sit on one in Scotland.

[Edited to add: Regularly is just totally the WRONG test to apply here. Who cares with what regularity someone gets treatment? As drafted it would exclude someone with a well managed, well controlled condition who has a regular annual check up for 10 minutes with a mental health professional but not someone who has frequent but irregular meetings because their condition is badly controlled.]
Click to expand...

Ah, that's good to know, since I now live in Scotland, and would have been excluded in England.
 
Cuddles said:
In addition to the ease of finding a temporary replacement, as noted by Richardm, there's also the consequences. If you can't find a teacher then, in the worst case, a few children get a bit less education for a few days. On the other hand, if you can't find a replacement medical practioner (human or animal), people (or animals) can end up dead. And given that there's really no such thing as a temporary replacement doctor (not on short notice for a few days at least), that's quite a big problem.
Click to expand...

That may be the reason the exemption was introduced. However it most certainly is possible to get replacement medical staff at short notice (and with jury service the "normal" notice is apparently three weeks or more). Locum doctors (who do exactly this) are an essential feature of the NHS.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/ask_the_doctor/doctorslocum.shtml
 
Jaggy Bunnet said:
I would also question the list of excluded professions - why should a vet be able to opt out but not a teacher? A dentist but not a farmer?

And finally, as a long shot, does anyone know how the exclusions, especially the excluded professions, came about?

I assume that originally that Doctors were excluded but this gradually widened to related professions. Still confused as to how vets get in!
Click to expand...
Doctor's exclusions are not solely (or even primarily) due to the inconvenience it would cause them or their patients. The reason these professions are generally banned from jury duty is because they are widely considered "experts" by the public, and attorneys and judges fear that their opinions would therefore have more weight in the jury room than that of a teacher, farmer or accountant, in effect subverting the essential democracy of the whole notion of jury duty.
 
Regarding people with mental health problems being excluded if they need to seek medical treatment regularly - would it not be logical to exclude anyone who needs to attend medical treatment very regularly (for physical or mental ilness alike), as this could easily interfere with the schedule of the trial? If a trial is expected to last more than a couple of days, then I presume the trial would need to be adjourned if a juror needs to make a regular visit to the doctor, which would be quite inconvenient for the court.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom