Jury Service

I have just completed nearly two weeks of serving on a Jury at a Crown Court in London. I am unable to identify the court or the trials involved, due to rules on my conduct as a juror, but I can comment on the requirement to serve on juries and the need for juries to make a judgement on the guilt or innocence of someone charged with an offence against the law of the country.

This is the fourth time in the last 10 years that I have been called for Jury service, and the second time that I actually served. Previously, I had work or personal commitments, which prevented me from serving. Any Juror can be summoned at random, to serve at any court in the geographic area that they live in. The restrictions on people serving on juries were relaxed a couple of years ago, to broaden the pool of potential jurors who can be called to serve.  Previously excluded professions such as serving armed forces members, doctors, nurses, police oficers and even members of the clergy and legal professions may serve, as long as they have no connection with the actual court that they are called forward to serve on. Even convicted felons may serve if their offences spent are under the rehabilitation of offenders act, although someone who has received or served a sentence of imprisonment will be excluded.

My experience was of the first five days, of 90 new people being called as a group to serve for up to two weeks (or longer if needed) from a widely disparate group of men and women, aged over 18 and up to and including age 70. As might be expected, there were people from all of the ethnic groups represented in our local community and from a wide range of backgrounds. I was called to serve with 11 others on a trial on the first day, which lasted for five days, that consisted of 7 men and 5 women. We bonded quickly as we went to and from court, interrupted often by being asked to leave the court while points of law were discussed or the admissibility of a particular piece of evidence was challenged. It was intellectually stimulating at times as we listened carefully to the Judge giving us direction, to the advocates for the prosecution and the defence and individual witnesses as they gave their evidence and responded to cross examination. We had physical evidence to consider as well as agreed facts and statements, and other documents. We were briefed and guided by the judge on points of law in the particular case and given an excellent summary by him of the evidence and what we needed to establish in fact to enable to be sure of the evidence on each of the indictments made pointed to the guilt or innocence of the defendant.

It was heavy going at times, and we were not allowed to discuss the evidence until we were sent out to deliberate on the fifth day. But the time spent together wasn't wasted. Our inter-personal relationships developed and we spoke widely about our individual experiences, work, families, context of our lives and inevitably about our personal faith. We included 4 Anglican Christians, 2 Muslims and six people who were either agnostic about faith, or were lapsed in their faith. The thing that delighted me was that people were open and frank about their lives and faith experiences, and twelve strangers became friends, albeit, we will probably never meet each other again in the future. We were united in purpose for the five days, which demonstrated to me, that community is about the people in it, not the bubble that it lives in - we were community with each other, even when we left at the end of each day, to return to our homes and families.

Once we delivered our verdict on the first case, we returned to the pool of jurors, described as 'jurors in waiting' and we didn't expect to serve together again. But 10 of us were selected for a new jury the following week, and again six for a third jury in the same week. I for my part was left waiting, but as a group, we gravitated together when we met, whatever jury we were later allocated too.

My one regret was that yesterday after returning home the Jury manager rang me to say that due to the bank holiday coming up, no new trials were being started and that I could end my Jury service here and now. I agreed to that, but I was than unable to return to court to say good bye to my group of friends. No doubt those who live locally might bump into each other, but it felt like a real loss to me yesterday afternoon. Sadness that new relationships had been severed so abruptly.

What did I learn from this?

First it is a privilege to do my civic duty in this way. The initial resentment on the impingement of my time, disipated in the experience of working together with others of a like mind, but a disparate background, to debate and to share and to laugh together (lots of laughter) and to grow together in ways that I had not expected.

Second - that the criminal justice system isn't perfect, but the Jury provides a check and balance to the enforcement and judiciary to moderate and make an informed, independent assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of a particular case and at least gives the defendant the opportunity to convince us of their guilt or innocence. It has been going for hundreds of years and is proven to be the best way of dealing with crime and those who commit them.

Third - I have learned more about myself this time around than I expected. This quite (at times) introverted individual, was able to open up and to share my life experience, particularly my faith journey with others I had never met before, and am unlikely to meet again. God puts these opportunities for us to either ignore or to be open to. I thank God that I was receptive and responded.