stripeyfox Posted 10 June 2015 Share Posted 10 June 2015 My girlfriends friend got chosen for this. She is Polish and was pretty pissed and concerned about doing it. She doesn't speak fluent English although she understands and speaks more than she lets on. She sent the forms back saying she can't do it because she hasnt been in this country the required five years which is criteria. Unsure if she has had a response yet. Begs the question of should non British people be allowed on a jury? Just seems odd for it to happen when there must be many examples of Eastern European people especially not speaking great English and not being here long enough. Youd think the relevant authorities would know how long people have lived here etc before asking? Also you wouldn't expect foreigners to have a great knowledge on our laws etc in some crime cases. Just thought it was odd how she got chosen really. You can be exempt if you can't speak/don't understand English. But if the "foreigners" are living here and on electoral roll then they can be selected. You don't have to have detailed knowledge of law to be a juror, you just have to listen to the evidence and decide who you believe. Otherwise you may as well let the judge decide! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rincewind Posted 10 June 2015 Share Posted 10 June 2015 If there is a point of law the jury cannot decide upon they can ask for advice. I wonder how hard it is to ignore something that is said ina courtroom even if the judge says to disregard it as evidence? Hearsay for instance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 10 June 2015 Share Posted 10 June 2015 Are you being serious? Since when have members of the jury ever had to have a knowledge of the law? They decide matters of fact there are people paid a lot of money to decide on areas of law. A jury is meant to represent society and there are people of different nationalities that live in England, and are tried in England, so of course they should be eligible for jury duty. I agree with this. However, jury nullification is a key part of challenging laws that could be considered unjust, and for that to be effective at least one juror has to know about it and about the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freesolo Posted 10 June 2015 Share Posted 10 June 2015 I know of only 2 people in my whole life that have done Jury Duty, my Mum and a Friend. My dad is in his 60s and has never been called up. I think the odds of getting selected are huge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADK Posted 10 June 2015 Share Posted 10 June 2015 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-33045706 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strokes Posted 10 June 2015 Share Posted 10 June 2015 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-33045706 That's absolutely appalling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DB11 Posted 10 June 2015 Share Posted 10 June 2015 That's absolutely appalling Why? It doesn't show that they were wrongly convicted or that they are innocent, just that there is now reasonable doubt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strokes Posted 10 June 2015 Share Posted 10 June 2015 Why? It doesn't show that they were wrongly convicted or that they are innocent, just that there is now reasonable doubt If they were imprisoned and there is evidence the conviction was unsafe, then by default they are innocent. It's how the system has always worked. They have spent time behind bars and shouldn't have done. Bare minimum they should receive is enough money to rebuild a life. Imo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StanSP Posted 10 June 2015 Share Posted 10 June 2015 if you do Jury duty once, can you be selected to do it again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stripeyfox Posted 10 June 2015 Share Posted 10 June 2015 if you do Jury duty once, can you be selected to do it again? Yes. The odds are against it of course but you can. My dad has done it twice. If you get called within three years of doing it though, you can be excempted. I'd love to do it again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DB11 Posted 10 June 2015 Share Posted 10 June 2015 If they were imprisoned and there is evidence the conviction was unsafe, then by default they are innocent. It's how the system has always worked. They have spent time behind bars and shouldn't have done. Bare minimum they should receive is enough money to rebuild a life. Imo But the evidence wasn't there at the time so the conviction wasn't wrong per se. Based on the evidence at the time a jury thought they were guilty, new evidence coming to light suggests that had it been available at the time they may not have found them guilty doesn't mean that it was wrong. If something is discovered that completely exonerates them then I can understand compensation but for a jury to have found them guilty beyond reasonable doubt at the time I can only imagine that the evidence was quite compelling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strokes Posted 10 June 2015 Share Posted 10 June 2015 But the evidence wasn't there at the time so the conviction wasn't wrong per se. Based on the evidence at the time a jury thought they were guilty, new evidence coming to light suggests that had it been available at the time they may not have found them guilty doesn't mean that it was wrong. If something is discovered that completely exonerates them then I can understand compensation but for a jury to have found them guilty beyond reasonable doubt at the time I can only imagine that the evidence was quite compelling. They have been imprisoned for something the state no longer thinks they were guilty of, if they are not guilty they are innocent, until proved otherwise. It's dangerous territory to suggest otherwise. If the state thinks it shouldn't have to pay compensation, they should retry the evidence and prove absolute guilt, or cough up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Illusion35 Posted 10 June 2015 Share Posted 10 June 2015 I've done it and enjoyed it. I'd like to do it again! Was a class A drug dealing case and all the evidence pointed to guilty so fairly straight forward. What bothered me a bit was that at Leicester Crown Court everyone went in the same door, so you could arrive at the same time as all the defendants friends which was a bit intimidating! I was the lead juror so had to stand up and give the verdict at the end of the trial which was quite scary. He got 4 years in prison, well Glen Parva as was under 21. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADK Posted 10 June 2015 Share Posted 10 June 2015 But the evidence wasn't there at the time so the conviction wasn't wrong per se. Based on the evidence at the time a jury thought they were guilty, new evidence coming to light suggests that had it been available at the time they may not have found them guilty doesn't mean that it was wrong. If something is discovered that completely exonerates them then I can understand compensation but for a jury to have found them guilty beyond reasonable doubt at the time I can only imagine that the evidence was quite compelling. I'd say a conviction was wrong if there was evidence available that would have introduced reasonable doubt and people should be entitled to compensation for time spent wrongfully imprisoned. Strokes sums it up really, you are innocent until proven guilty. If a conviction is found to be unsafe then you are innocent and always were. At which point the state has imprisoned an innocent person and that person should receive compensation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sly Posted 10 June 2015 Share Posted 10 June 2015 I did it at the back-end of last year. I'd got a two week old child, so had been on paternity leave, then had to go on two weeks jury service. Needless to say, same as everyone else a rather dull, boring drab affair. I was struggling to stay awake as well. My first case lasted a week but split the jury, we spend two days debating the outcome. Eventually, people came around to my line of thinking! Second was a boring smuggling case. Third got thrown out as the bloke had a change of heart, pleaded guilty after seeing us rock up!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julian Joachim Jr Shabadoo Posted 10 June 2015 Share Posted 10 June 2015 Imagine having 12 years of your life stolen from you by the state then being told you weren't eligible for any compensation. Think I'd actually kill someone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rincewind Posted 10 June 2015 Share Posted 10 June 2015 After 12 years inside it would be difficult to start a new life. Some employers would still be reluctant to take somebody on even if the conviction was squased. It would be a 12 year gap in work experience. Depending on the age they would need a little to set up again, a place to live and readjusting to life outside. It proven innocent it would not be their fault the prosecution got it wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julian Joachim Jr Shabadoo Posted 10 June 2015 Share Posted 10 June 2015 Squased! I love how you went for "quashed", decided on "squashed" then misspelt it Anyhow, otherwise good post. 12 years gap on your CV (conviction or not) you're not going to be getting many interviews. Seems like a massive injustice, surely there's a way they will be compensated with the right legal knowhow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stripeyfox Posted 11 June 2015 Share Posted 11 June 2015 What bothered me a bit was that at Leicester Crown Court everyone went in the same door, so you could arrive at the same time as all the defendants friends which was a bit intimidating! Yes, I was looking over my shoulder on the way back to the station! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sly Posted 11 June 2015 Share Posted 11 June 2015 Yes, I was looking over my shoulder on the way back to the station! I found this odd also! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.