Elizabeth Davies gets a jury summons; she finds the opportunity rather than the inconvenience is her key takeaway

An interesting and timely article, for me.  I must have been also around 23 when first called up for jury service.  In those days I wore a suit and probably looked quite presentable, yet, I was chalanged.  I always wonder what it was about me that someone didn't like.  I wonder what information they had on me that didn't suit their interests.

This lead me to the thought that a jury is not just a random group of your peers, but of a nicely selected group of your peers, where the 'potentially undesirable' have been filtered out.

Earlier this year I was again selected for jury service, but this time applied for deferral due to work comittements, which was granted.  Alas a few weeks later, another summons for a date later this year.  Of course nobody knows how long I'll be required for, so it makes planning things around that time rather challenging.  I rather hope that I'm challenged again, unless perhaps it's a case where my skillset would be an advantage.  As you say, the pay is very low, though my employer has offered to keep paying my wages for a week at most, so that is good news.  Alas, I am cursed with a sense of humour, and have been looking at clothing online; a great range of T-Shirts are available now - I'm leaning towards the one that reads "I head voices in my head and they're speaking Russian" - I guess only those people who watch FPS Russia on YouTube will get that one...  I don't think I'll go as far as the one that reads "guilty", but that would be a great laugh too.

Hmm, better go, there are sirens in the street outside and someone knocking heavily on my door...

;-)

I've been called up twice. I don't own a suit, or a tie. Got selected once, rejected once. The involvement one was satisfying - being part of the community. The rejection was by a lawyer who knew of me, but didn't 'know me'. May have decided I had a prejudice detrimental to her client, who knows?

How about a t-shirt with a thumbs up or a thumbs down? Or one with an adjustable thumb?

I have been selected once.  It was a sobering and meaningful experience that we would all benefit from.  Especially when we are tending to mouth off about the legal process.  Just wish that it wasn't neccessary.

In a world where many people are struggling I see no justification for not paying at least the living wage.  The judges and lawers are all paid well.  We don't want a system where only the wealthy can afford to serve and the poor find every excuse to avoid their civic duty.

I think there should be a law which requires employers to pay employees their full remuneration whilst on jury service. The employers could be reimbursed whatever the daily rate is by the justice system.  If the employer wanted to plead hardship (either for financial or workload reasons) - then they could do that in court to get their employees excused. 

One of the bonuses of not participating in the comedy act called voting means your address is not up to date on the electoral role. The summons will never get to me. I think the justice system is also a comedy act but would still be happy to do it because in that instance justice would to some extent be up to me not some swanky smart mouthed barrister. Agree with Chris-M about the pay though, make it the same as the Judge and/or Barristers, surely the jury is just as essential to the court as them?

Good on you Elizabeth, in an age of rights without responsibilities you're swimming against the tide.