Jury Duty

[123rover50]

Who has ever been called up and done it?
What are the criterior for getting called up?
Mr Whippys court case thread reminded me of this as in all the years we have lived here , not once have we been asked to serve.
Conversely a Spinster we knew on the coast has been asked three times but begged off for a couple of them.
There have been lots of cases with scumbags involved I would have enjoyed to have taken part in their incarceration:mad:
Didiman

[Bundalene]

I spent a full week as a jury member on a drug trial some years ago, what an eye opener.


I can highly recommend doing jury duty if given the opportunity.


My only gripe was that you really have to watch the media to find the eventual sentencing if found guilty.



Erich

[87County]

While it is a community service to actually serve on a jury, only a minority of those empanelled will ever have to do so. Beyond genuine legal reasons for not serving there are many techniques (legal and dodgy) that people who are drafted employ to achieve their rejection by counsel.

In NSW, the panel is made up in local areas for a period of time by a random choice (lottery ?) from the electoral roll.

The people I really feel for are sole traders (e.g. sub-contractors) who have deadlines and customers' expectations to meet, and for whom there is no replacement in their business - unfortunately this has never been a reasonable excuse for not serving.

By the way the pay is a pittance, but people with some jobs (like public servants) get their usual pay.

In many ways, from the POV of the juror, it is not an equitable system.

[flagg]

I did jury duty a few years ago. I wasn't all that keen, but interested in getting a behind the seems look at the process of law - I didn't think once about what the case may be about.

Turned out, I was put on the jury for a serial pedophile case. It was a horrific and harrowing experience with many in the jury (myself included) struggling to fight back tears having to listen to what this guy liked to do to 8 year olds. But it was truly horrifying how the victims were treated by the defence lawyer.

After going through all this, there was a stuff up with some evidence and they needed a new jury. It took about 5 min after it was presented in the court room and then we were shuffled off, told to get our bags and shown the door.

I stood on the street behind the court room wondering what the hell had happened. I consider myself to be a fairly emotionally strong person and I lost my sense of humour for a long time after that. There was no support offered during or after the trial. All in all it was a pretty horrible experience, and knowing that the victims (I think it should be survivors..) had to go through it all again with the defence lawyer still makes me feel sick.

[PhilipA]

I have been called up twice and proceeded to the stage of empanelment once and been objected off , and the second time I was empanelled but my panel was not selected.
Each time you proceed to the empanelment stage gives you a 5 year exemption.

The first time was quite funny.
I was at the Hmm urinal with a ministerial advisor ( cynical ex copper) and told him I was to do jury duty. He looked at me and said "no chance" . I said why.
He said " You are a middle aged conservative looking white male. There is no chance you will get on a jury".

So I went to the Darling Centre, was ampanelled , we all walked up to Taylor Square for a robbery trial , and I was objected off by the defence lawyer.
It appears that you have to be a 25 year old hippy chick or covered in tats etc to get on a jury.
If you want to appear to do your duty but not have to do it, just have a good haircut, be clean shaven, and wear your best suit. This is especially valid if you are at least 40 years old and a WASP male. LOL
Regards Philip A

[87County]

I did jury duty a few years ago. I wasn't all that keen, but interested in getting a behind the seems look at the process of law - I didn't think once about what the case may be about.

Turned out, I was put on the jury for a serial pedophile case. It was a horrific and harrowing experience with many in the jury (myself included) struggling to fight back tears having to listen to what this guy liked to do to 8 year olds. But it was truly horrifying how the victims were treated by the defence lawyer.

After going through all this, there was a stuff up with some evidence and they needed a new jury. It took about 5 min after it was presented in the court room and then we were shuffled off, told to get our bags and shown the door.

I stood on the street behind the court room wondering what the hell had happened. I consider myself to be a fairly emotionally strong person and I lost my sense of humour for a long time after that. There was no support offered during or after the trial. All in all it was a pretty horrible experience, and knowing that the victims (I think it should be survivors..) had to go through it all again with the defence lawyer still makes me feel sick.


In very many ways, the justice system forces victims into repeated suffering, the long term effects of which can be horrendous.

It seems to be more about justice being seen to be done for the accused than justice actually being done.

[Bushie]

Never been called, but would be exempt anyway, as working in emergency services.

Both daughters have been called (at different times) one was empanneled for an 8 week murder trial, that was a mis-trial after 2 weeks, the other was rejected by the defense.

Martyn

[Mick_Marsh]

The people I really feel for are sole traders (e.g. sub-contractors) who have deadlines and customers' expectations to meet, and for whom there is no replacement in their business - unfortunately this has never been a reasonable excuse for not serving.
Was a valid excuse for me.

By the way the pay is a pittance, but people with some jobs (like public servants) get their usual pay.
Your employer is supposed to make up the difference. It's in the information they send you.

[Chucaro]

I would be interested the day that we have a court of justice instead of a court of law :)

[frantic]

I have been called up twice and proceeded to the stage of empanelment once and been objected off , and the second time I was empanelled but my panel was not selected.
Each time you proceed to the empanelment stage gives you a 5 year exemption.

The first time was quite funny.
I was at the Hmm urinal with a ministerial advisor ( cynical ex copper) and told him I was to do jury duty. He looked at me and said "no chance" . I said why.
He said " You are a middle aged conservative looking white male. There is no chance you will get on a jury".

So I went to the Darling Centre, was ampanelled , we all walked up to Taylor Square for a robbery trial , and I was objected off by the defence lawyer.
It appears that you have to be a 25 year old hippy chick or covered in tats etc to get on a jury.
If you want to appear to do your duty but not have to do it, just have a good haircut, be clean shaven, and wear your best suit. This is especially valid if you are at least 40 years old and a WASP male. LOL
Regards Philip A

Actually I was going to say the opposite:D Last time I was on jury duty about 3 years ago the 3 people kicked off the jury, by the prosecution where myself, 37 with a full beard, another guy with a beard from my year in high school, hadn't seen him for 15 years, and a bloke with tatts and 3 day growth. They kept the clean shaven guys, and there where no hippy chicks to be seen. about 12months before that I was called up to sit in the waiting room, name checked then after they had called a number of people over about 1-2hrs, told to go home as not required:mad:
So my advice would be try for at least 3 day growth, scruffy clothes, possibly a nervous twitch and as glazed a look as possible;)

[pop058]

While it is a community service to actually serve on a jury, only a minority of those empanelled will ever have to do so. Beyond genuine legal reasons for not serving there are many techniques (legal and dodgy) that people who are drafted employ to achieve their rejection by counsel.

In NSW, the panel is made up in local areas for a period of time by a random choice (lottery ?) from the electoral roll.

The people I really feel for are sole traders (e.g. sub-contractors) who have deadlines and customers' expectations to meet, and for whom there is no replacement in their business - unfortunately this has never been a reasonable excuse for not serving.

By the way the pay is a pittance, but people with some jobs (like public servants) get their usual pay.

In many ways, from the POV of the juror, it is not an equitable system.

I recently (within the last month) got picked and applied for an exemption on the basis I am a sub-contractor and cannot afford to be without income for the expected 10 day duration of the trial.

The cutoff date passed last week, so I assume I am out :)

[Eevo]

If i get called up they defendant is automatically guilty.
I have just shown I'm bias and therefor nt suitable for duty

[mick88]

Have been called for jury service on two occasions, wasn't able to attend on one as I was going to be out of the country.
On the second I attended but didn't meet the "selection criteria" and got turned away. I was looking forward to it as it was to be an interesting case.
I have been in the witness box several times over the years for work related cases......mainly Coroners Court and Supreme Court, all murder trials.
Interesting to say the least. Some of the poor jurers must walk away traumatised after viewing some the photographs that are presented as evidence!

Cheers, Mick.

[Ferret]

I've been called up twice.

Both times locked in room with a bunch of people I didn't know, given a sandwich after about 3 hours and then 2 hours after that told to go home.

I guess the all crims must have just confessed on those particular days.

[drifter]

My wife was recently required to attend for selection.

The prosecution 'person' (think of another word starting with 'p') said "No - she is a grandmother" and she was sent home. And 6 weeks later was sent a cheque for $66.

The trial she was rejected for? 3 guys on trial for attempting to murder a younger guy.

Can't see how being a grandmother would be a problem.

I was called once in NZ but was waived because I was a sole trader and selection would have ruined my income. Same clause applies here.

[123rover50]

Well beats me. We have been on the electoral roll since returning from PNG in 1980. My wifes been a JP Qualified for years I have a beard but no tats and we lean a bit to the right but they wouldnt know that.
Maybe its because we belong to a bunch of shooting clubs and own a heap of guns that we are not called up.
Who knows:(

[pop058]

Well beats me. We have been on the electoral roll since returning from PNG in 1980. My wifes been a JP Qualified for years I have a beard but no tats and we lean a bit to the right but they wouldnt know that.
Maybe its because we belong to a bunch of shooting clubs and own a heap of guns that we are not called up.
Who knows:(

They may know you own an Isuzu Kieth :D

[bob10]

My wife was recently required to attend for selection.

The prosecution 'person' (think of another word starting with 'p') said "No - she is a grandmother" and she was sent home. And 6 weeks later was sent a cheque for $66.


The prosecution will try to bar all those who they think will have a mindset to have a negative outlook for their client. Is that right, & fair? Perhaps not, does the Law protect the honest citizen? Good question. Bob

[JDNSW]

Been called in once in my life - spent a day, then dismissed, apparently too highly educated!

[123rover50]

They may know you own an Isuzu Kieth :D

Thats it.....
But that comes with the beard anway.
Or is it the other way round:o

[bobslandies]

I have been called up twice and proceeded to the stage of empanelment once and been objected off , and the second time I was empanelled but my panel was not selected.
Each time you proceed to the empanelment stage gives you a 5 year exemption.

The first time was quite funny.
I was at the Hmm urinal with a ministerial advisor ( cynical ex copper) and told him I was to do jury duty. He looked at me and said "no chance" . I said why.
He said " You are a middle aged conservative looking white male. There is no chance you will get on a jury".

So I went to the Darling Centre, was ampanelled , we all walked up to Taylor Square for a robbery trial , and I was objected off by the defence lawyer.
It appears that you have to be a 25 year old hippy chick or covered in tats etc to get on a jury.
If you want to appear to do your duty but not have to do it, just have a good haircut, be clean shaven, and wear your best suit and appear totally anal by having three different coloured ballpoints in your top pocket. This is especially valid if you are at least 40 years old and a WASP male. LOL
Regards Philip A

Never fails - prosecutor and defence will leap up to object. If you want to never be selected again ask the jury's Court Attendant or a Sheriff's Officer if you can send a note to His Honour asking if jurors can ask questions directly.

Here's how it is supposed to work in NSW, lots of good info in this - shame it can be thwarted.:

Outline of trial procedure — Judicial Commission of New South Wales (http://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publications/benchbks/criminal/outline_of_trial_procedure.html)

Empanelling the jury

Provisions concerning the jury are found in the Jury Act 1977.

A jury panel is summoned by the sheriff and brought into court when required.

It is suggested that before the panel is brought into court the judge discusses with counsel matters that should be raised with the panel at the outset because they may impact upon a juror’s willingness to perform his or her duty, such as the length of the trial, pre-trial publicity and the particular nature of the charge.

The judge can determine whether to excuse any person in the panel: s 38 Jury Act. Generally the sheriff’s officer will bring written applications for excusal to the judge for approval. The judge can determine to have the prospective juror make the application in person after the panel is brought into court.

It is suggested that the trial judge inquire of the panel whether any person wishes to be excused for some reason, even though an application may have been refused by the sheriff, based on any matter raised with counsel or otherwise. For example, the jury should be informed that the proceedings will be in English, the sitting times of the court and the need for attendance every day. It is a matter for the judge whether the prospective juror should be sworn or not when seeking to be excused.

It is possible to challenge the array before empanelment but this is very rarely done: s 41 Jury Act. This is a challenge against the processes of the sheriff in selecting the panel.

If pre-trial rulings have been made pursuant to s 130(2) the accused is to be arraigned again on the indictment before the jury panel: s 130(3); DS v R [2012] NSWCCA 159 at [63]. Otherwise there is no necessity for the accused to be re-arraigned before the jury, although it is common practice to do so: see R v Janceski (2005) 64 NSWLR 10.

After the accused is arraigned before the panel but before the selection of jurors, the judge requests the Crown to inform the jurors on the panel of the nature of the charge, the identity of the accused and of the principal witnesses to be called for the prosecution: s 38 Jury Act, see [1-460]. The defence counsel can be asked whether there is any matter that should be raised with the jury, such as the names of defence witnesses.

As to the procedure for assumed identities of prosecution witnesses before the jury panel, see [1-455]ff.

The judge calls on the jurors in the panel to apply to be excused if they consider that they are not able to give impartial consideration to the case in light of what the prosecutor has said, and in particular whether a potential juror may know a witness personally: s 37(8) Jury Act. The judge hears from each juror who raises a question about his or fitness as a juror and decides whether there is any need to discharge him or her. Where the juror indicates that he or she knows a witness, counsel should be asked to clarify firstly, whether the person who the juror knows is a witness and secondly whether the juror should be disqualified by reason of his or her knowledge of or relationship with the witness.

The jurors are selected by secret ballot in open court: s 48 Jury Act. The selection of the potential jurors is performed by the judge’s associate withdrawing cards from the box provided. The jurors are referred to only by numbers given to them by the sheriff. The parties have no right to the names or any other personal information of prospective jurors: R v Ronen [2004] NSWCCA 176. As to the selection of the jury generally and challenges, see Pt 7 Jury Act and [1-460]ff. See also Criminal Practice and Procedure NSW at [7-450], [29-50,725]; Criminal Law (NSW) at [5-3970].

As to the number of jurors and the selection of additional jurors where necessary, see s 19 Jury Act and [1-440].

A challenge can be made by the accused or the legal representative: s 44 Jury Act. Defence counsel will usually ask to be permitted to assist the accused, and permission is inevitably given. The challenges are made before the juror is sworn, usually before being handed the bible.

Practices as to empanelling can vary. One method is that the jury be advised that they will be permitted to take an oath or an affirmation as to the conduct of his or her duties as a juror. They should also be advised as to the right of the parties to challenge particular jurors. The twelve prospective jurors are called into the box. The accused is informed of the right to challenge by the clerk of arraigns. The court attendant offers the bible to the prospective juror in a manner to give time for a challenge to be made. Once challenged the jury is asked to leave the jury box. Further jurors are called and challenges taken until the required number of jurors is obtained.

After members of the jury have been chosen, the jury is sworn by oath or affirmation: s 72A Jury Act. It is a matter for the practice of the individual judge whether the jury is sworn as a group or individually. It is not necessary for the accused to be arraigned again after the jury is selected: DS v R [2012] NSWCCA 159 at [64]. After the jurors are sworn the balance of the panel is returned to the sheriff and leaves the courtroom.

After the jury is sworn, the accused is given or placed into the charge of the jury by the judge’s associate. This is in effect indicating to the jury the charges in the indictment and the jury’s duty to act according to the evidence. They are also asked to choose a foreperson.

It is suggested that where the indictment contains a number of counts or multiple accused the Crown be requested to provide the jury with a copy of the indictment at this time or shortly thereafter. It can be helpful for the judge in opening for the jury to have a copy of the indictment where there are numerous or complicated charges.

It is suggested that after the jury has been charged, the judge tells the jury that it does not have to elect a foreperson immediately, it can change the foreperson at any time, the major function of the foreperson is to deliver the verdict but he or she can be the person who communicates between the jury and the judge, but the foreperson has not more rights in respect of the conduct of the jury or the determination of the verdict than any other member of the jury.

Where at any time during the trial the accused wishes to plead guilty, he or she should be arraigned again. If there is a plea of guilty to the charge or an included charge and the plea is accepted by the Crown, the jury is to be discharged without giving a verdict: s 157.

After empanelment some judges think it appropriate for the court attendant to give a direction that potential witnesses leave the court and the hearing of the court.

Bob

[Eevo]

Both times locked in room with a bunch of people I didn't know, given a sandwich after about 3 hours and then 2 hours after that told to go home.

I guess the all crims must have just confessed on those particular days.

locked in a room? sure you wernt the crim?!!?

did you eat the sandwich? eating the sandwich means you're guilty.

[Eevo]

so if i do something naughty, i get judged by a jury of my peers?
i look at the people around me and i wonder what went wrong with society.

[korg20000bc]

I used to be a NSW Sheriff's Officer and jury management was part of those duties.

The system is very different to what you see on American TV productions.

Defence and prosecution don't have unlimited objections to jurors. Each side has up to 3 objections. Not all 3 are always used. If both sides object to the same person, both use up one of their objections.

There are juries needed for criminal cases and also for civil law cases but there are only 4 jurors on those.

It's one of the very few duties we have in our democracy.

[clubagreenie]

so if i do something naughty, i get judged by a jury of my peers?
i look at the people around me and i wonder what went wrong with society.

If I have no peers do I qualify for a non jury trial?

[CapableCate]

I did jury duty a few years ago. I wasn't all that keen, but interested in getting a behind the seems look at the process of law - I didn't think once about what the case may be about.

Turned out, I was put on the jury for a serial pedophile case. It was a horrific and harrowing experience with many in the jury (myself included) struggling to fight back tears having to listen to what this guy liked to do to 8 year olds. But it was truly horrifying how the victims were treated by the defence lawyer.

After going through all this, there was a stuff up with some evidence and they needed a new jury. It took about 5 min after it was presented in the court room and then we were shuffled off, told to get our bags and shown the door.

I stood on the street behind the court room wondering what the hell had happened. I consider myself to be a fairly emotionally strong person and I lost my sense of humour for a long time after that. There was no support offered during or after the trial. All in all it was a pretty horrible experience, and knowing that the victims (I think it should be survivors..) had to go through it all again with the defence lawyer still makes me feel sick.

I feel for you flagg; a dear friend of mine had similar experience with several weeks sitting through graphic visual & descriptive evidence of an agrivated assualt rape case. Totally horrific; as a Mum of 2 daughters of similar age to the victim at the time, she suffered Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Once again, there was no support offered to her, or fellow jurors, all of who suffered various emotional/mental repercussions. The system isn't set up to encourage potential jurors to assist, and I would not jeopardise my mental health. If asked to sit on any trials of the nature of the one you sat on, or my friend, I would make sure I wasn't selected. :BigCry:[bigsad]

[isuzurover]

Well beats me. We have been on the electoral roll since returning from PNG in 1980. My wifes been a JP Qualified for years I have a beard but no tats and we lean a bit to the right but they wouldnt know that.
Maybe its because we belong to a bunch of shooting clubs and own a heap of guns that we are not called up.
Who knows:(

I know anyone with a legal degree (even if not practicing) will not be called.
The fact that you (as I understand?) live a fair distance from a court may be a factor. You may have to attend every day for a week even if not empanelled.

[Duke4]

I just finished my Jury Duty last Monday, it went for a week and it was interesting.
I'm glad I did it and glad it is over.

[iClick]

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/10/33.jpg

[d2dave]

I got called about 25 years ago. I was able to get out of it as I was moving house before the trial, and if you lived more than 25 kms from the court you could be exempt. This was my case.

In Vic if you have done it you are exempt for the next three years.

I wonder what would happen if someone in the jury had a big night and nodded off during the case.