Reflections - the sequel... pt 3

And, finally, on Tuesday 21st May, the prosecution rested on a trial that began on 14th April, neither of the five defendants elected to take the stand or call any witnesses, and we were dismissed at just gone 15:00 to come back Thursday morning at 10:00 (court wasn't sitting Wednesday due to a prior engagement) to hear closing arguments. So off we all went, eager to get back in to maybe find out why one brief had been so insistent on questioning the lead detective on the shape of his client's garden, a non sequitur of baffling proportions compared to the actual offence he was charged with. 

And we all turned up bright-eyed and bushy-tailed dead on 10:00, waited about 20 mins in the jurt room, then our usher called us in and....the dock was empty! I knew this was a sign we wouldn't sit and hoped the judge would tell us why. but all she said was how sorry she was that we had had a wasted journey, but that this was due to 'events beyond the court's control' and we were released until 10:30 Thursday 30th, but told to keep our mobiles on and if we couldn't sit after all, we'd get a call on Wednesday afternoon. 

So on Saturday I got a letter through the post, a breakdown of the four week expense claim I'd submitted the following week. It was for 15 days (as some days the court wasn't sitting, due to prior appointments or bank holidays) @ £3.50 bus fares per day (all backed up with Oyster printouts) and @ £5.71 meal rate per day. I made the fares £85.65 and the meals £52.50.

The court made it £63 and £114.20 respectively! 🤷‍♀️

I went back to work, WFH on the Wednesday, awaiting a call to tell me we wouldn't be sitting on Thursday after all. No call, so off I went! I had forgotten that it was half-term. so set off early to miss the school run and got there early, as did some of the other jurors. The usher came down to call us at 10:05, but obviously some were still in transit. He had understood that we'd been told to come at 10:00.

Eventually, the others turned up, off we went, waited 10 mins in the retiring room, then into court. Relaxed when I saw the defendantts were all ptresent, then the bombshell; because of the delays, we couldn't continue today, as this trial's estimated date for finishing of 6th June was not now achievable and we were told to go back to the retiring room and write a note with all our dates we couldn't attend up to the 7th July! Not the reason, the judge assured us, she didn't need that, just the dates.

So we did, many of us wondering why this couldn't have been done by email or the expected phone call! The usher collected our notes, and we waited again. After a long pause, he returns - asking us to give the reason for these dates. The judge obviously decided she did need the reason after all! We all amended our notes. Another wait, then the usher comes back in to ask us to confirm if the days we'd put were all full days, or were some of them just morning or afternoon? Another wait. Then the door opens and this time, the amendment was to run the unavailability dates up to the end of July.  

Then we were called back into court after another wait and the judge said she needed more time and she was dismissing us for lunch, to come back at 14:30 (it was about 12:15).

14:30 came and went, as did 15:00 and we were finally called in at 15:45. Went into court to be told she was very sorry, but the trial could not continue, so we would be discharged, and the defendants would face a new trial, so we couldn't talk about it. So I can't tell you who these miscreants are, but you can bet I'll be monitoring local news and as soon as they are convicted - if they ever are - I will! And so we all headed home, strangers who'd become friends over the course of eight weeks, even if we did only attend court for 28 days, and maybe did actual jury work for less than 2/3 of that.

We weren't given a reason for this declaration of mistrial, but I can only conclude it's because the judge couldn't find a long enough period of time we were all available to hear the evidence and deliberate, without cutting into other cases waiting to start...

The very next day, a survey request dropped into my mailbox.

So I duly filled it in. I seem to remember getting one of these last time as well, but I certainly didn't get this back then! 

Another sign of the times. 

I wouldn't let this put me off any further requests, should they come. It's an experience everyone should encounter at least once in their lives. 

Reflections - the sequel...pt 2

As for cases, I was empanelled on the first day (April 8th) for a trial described by the judge as 'a punch up' (affray) and potentially going into the third week, as there were five defendants. As soon as being sworn in we were told to report the next day at 11:00, but when we did, we were told there was a delay. When we finally got into court at about 12:00, the judge explained there wouldn't be a trial after all. Aha, thought I, they've copped to it or to a lesser charge. And indeed, that was what transpired; each one stood up and had the charge read (the first one pleading guilty to it, prompting panicked gesticulation from his startled defence and the judge kindly suggesting he 'have another go at that, eh?', whereupon he pleaded 'not guilty, but guilty to section 4' as did the other four in turn). The judge then turned to us and said we deserved an explanation - it transpired the offence dated back to 2018, and one of the assaulted bouncers at the nightclub in question had turned out to be on false ID papers and had since disappeared so the CPS weren't going to proceed with the more serious charge. We were thanked for our service and then sent back to the pool. 

Then a potentially eight week trial came up straight away, and we were all given a form to indicate if we had any booked holiday or medical appointments, or any other reason we couldn't serve. Followed by another huge list of names of the defendants (another group of five, conspiracy to rob) and all the witnesses, addresses, etc to note if we recognised any names. We were then taken in to be selected, those who said they could and those who said they couldn't, as exusing someone is left up to the judge's discretion. The two teachers I'd been speaking to had both indicated their school couldn't lose them for that long. Those forms were passed to the judge, who then called up each person in turn to discuss the reason given. It would have helped if the usher had had the wit to seperate us out into two groups and placed the ones needing to explain in front, but no, that was clearly beyond them, so much shuffling about was needed in the cramped rows... 

After immediately excusing some, asking others to bring evidence (of medical appointment letters or holiday bookings) the next day, or - in the case of the two teachers, an email from their headteacher - we were sent home. The next day, back in court, again not arranged so that those needing to be excused were in front, they were questioned again, some excused, some not (one of the teachers wasn't because she taught very young classes unlike the other who was excused, but in the end she wasn't picked for this trial anyway) and then jury selection could finally begin. I was picked for this one. 

We were then told the trial wouldn't start until Monday (this was Thursday!) so we were sent home, and I could go into work the next day. 

Then came Monday and the trial start, and here at last some signs of modernisation - each set of twin desks in the jury box boasted a flat screen monitor as CCTV evidence was to be produced. 

Unfortunately, on Wednesday, half the similar units on the counsel benches failed, and we were sent home at 11:00 for the day, as they couldn't be fixed by the in-house staff and an offsite firm would have to be called. I began to see why it had been suggested this case would take eight weeks! Later, on the Thursday morning I think it was, our screens wouldn't come on, but we were only sent out for about 40 minutes and when back inside, the judge advised the court clerk had resolved the situation by turning the whole shebang off and on again! 

It was noticeable that through the long recounting of CCTV and cell site evidence, the security guards in the dock often closed their eyes and looked asleep. I'm sure that they'd have sprung into action if any of them had decided to kick off, though. 😏 

The trial dragged on and on, we went over the same video and glossy expensively-produced books of stills evidence (containing many spelling mistakes and inaccuracies!) at least three times, first introduced by the prosecution, then again with the police replying 'Yes that's right' to questions asked, and then with the cell site expert doing the same. Rarely did any of the defence butt in except to further drop one of the other defendants right in it! 

We were also sent home early several times, missing court days because of defence counsel and defendant illness. We were almost always told by the judge to return the next day for 10 (apart from one day when other court business meant we were asked to come in for 10:30) yet we usually weren't collected by the usher until 10:30, and then quite often waited in the jury retiring room for well over 20 minutes before finally going into court. 

Reflections - the sequel...Pt 1

Well, that's finally over. And how did my 2024 stint compare with my 2014 stint? Well, not so good...it was obvious from my first day there that, despite the ten year gap, the functioning of the court services had got worse, and not better. 

The building was much the same (in fact, I rather doubt it had seen so much as a lick of paint in the intervening years!) and the security had been beefed up considerably - I recall bag searches the last time (to be expected) but now the entrance boasted two detector arches and the hand-held 'wand' detector to be passed every day, occasionally causing long queues to get in. On the second Tuesday, despite being in my bag for the rest of the time and being passed unremarked, a set of metal eyebrow tweezers was noted in my handbag, removed and I was given a receipt to pick them up at the end of the day. What they thought I could do with them, heaven only knows! But I complied, rules are rules and left it out of my bag for the next day.

I had expected the passage of time to have provided a lot more IT and automation, but no - the admin staff were still shuffling cards and paper around, despite the presence of a large screen behind their desk units in the corner that remained tuned to BBC News when it could have relayed important information to the waiting jury pool. The staff seemed far less efficient than I recalled from last time when they kept things moving rapidly and were always super helpful when approached. On one day we were treated to the surreal sight of  them calling up 5 groups of ten people (for a long trial) by one lady laboriously reading out the wanted names from a sheet of paper to another lady with the microphone who then called them out, giving a 'Chinese whispers' air to any hard-to-pronounce name - either give the lady with the list the mic, or give the list to the lady with the mic, it doesn't take TWO of you! 

Frequently, as a result of getting there earlier than necessary (an earlier bus meant I avoided the school run) I'd be waiting in the jury pool room and witnessed jurors approaching the corner to request a form for expenses, or to sign in - which only first week jurors were required to do - and be told by the person manning the desk to 'come back in half an hour'. Despite being there and clearly on duty, they were reluctant to actually start work until some pre-determined time has passed. I never did figure out what time that was. 

The less said about the food in the jury canteen the better, I don't recall it being good the last time, but it was dire now - I ordered a sausage sandwich one morning on the first week, and it tasted of...nothing. I tried a so-called 'steak burger' at lunch and it was inedible. Steak? From what animal? Luckily, in the years since the last stint, Wanstead High Street had sprouted a M&S Simply Food and a Greggs!  

As this is a long post, I'm going to take a leaf out of Zach Snyder's book and publish it in installments. 

One To Watch For Next Month?

It is absolutely terrifying. You know how they say you should never see how a sausage is made? Well, my friends, better a thousand sausages than any of the workings of this foundational piece of the criminal justice system – the best method of dispensing fairness we have been able to invent, and upon which the fates of uncountable millions of accused, their accusers and silent victims have depended.

What is this show? Well, it's Channel 4’s The Jury: Murder Trial, where not one but two juries are attending the same (dramatised) trial, in ignorance that the other exists. And since I'm due to take up a second stint at jury service in early April, I thought I'd better tune in and see what ten years had wrought on the average member of the public.

And...all I can say is I really hope that the members of both juries have been selected the way all such reality shows are usually selected, with an eye to drama. Because what I saw was nothing like my experience (of careful and sober juries), which fully understood the rules and more importantly, what we were really there to do.

Is this typical of modern juries? I'm going to find out soon, aren't I?

What's The Romanian For 'You Couldn't Make It Up'..?

A juror who whipped out his phone during a criminal trial to research a case he was trying, has avoided jail.

Adrian Pirstin, from Iwade near Sittingbourne (Ed: only peripherally, Reader...), carried out an internet probe into elements of the hearing while in the jury-booth at Canterbury Crown Court.

And has avoided a spell in chokey? How? 

To be found in contempt of court usually carries a mandatory prison sentence however, the judge instead discharged Pirstin from jury duty with a verbal warning.

Recorder Matthew Turner ruled the “flagrant breach” was owed to Pirstin’s “insufficient grasp” of spoken English.

Wait, what..? How the hell do you get selected for jury duty if you can't follow the evidence?

“Now, I am not satisfied you have a sufficient grasp of spoken English to follow sufficiently simple instructions.

“You have ended up wasting half a day of court time and these matters are taken extremely seriously.

“Your phone was inpounded and interrogated by the National Crime Agency and it was discovered that you had been undertaking some research, and that you had communicated by text messages with your wife about this case.”

/facepalm 

Speaking outside the court, the “shocked” Romanian national apologised for his actions.

“I like to do research and I thought if I could understand some things it would help, and I didn’t understand you couldn’t do research.”

That won't wash. I've done jury duty and it's something you are specifically warned against. Perhaps HMRC should be looking into what other 'simple instructions' you don't understand? Like how to calculate your tax liability? 

H/T: Farmageddon via Twitter

Handbags At Dawn!

A fashion designer has been jailed following an adrenaline-fuelled attack on police officers in his cell.

"Call that a uniform? I wouldn't let my lapdog wear that, dahling!"

Courtney Dwayne Valentine, 32, of Heygate Avenue, Southend, was found guilty of attacking police officers at Southend police station on May 18, after they insisted he take off his glasses – eventually taking them from them from his face after he refused.

Prosecutor Sam Doyle told the court Valentine then decided to fight the officers.

If you're wondering if he's a strapping six-foot bodybuilder, wonder no more. He's a skinny little bloke. As will be revealed at the bottom of this post

The defendant swung his hand towards the officer’s face, who felt a stinging sensation to his left cheek, and realised he had been hit.”

I bet he barely felt it!

She added the officer in question then hit Valentine in the face with his elbow “as hard as he could” in order to subdue him, hitting him another four or five times, as officers were unable to use pressure techniques to restrain him because he was “full of adrenaline”.

Heh!

Valentine’s solicitor Beth Brown told the court her client was not present at the hearing in which he was found guilty because he was homeless at the time and was not informed of the date, but had intended to plead guilty.

Yes, yes. Of course he did.

She added: “He was diagnosed with schizophrenia by a doctor who has signed him onto benefit but, to his credit, he isn’t somebody who sits at home, claims benefits, and doesn’t try to get work – his interests are in fashion and clothing design and tells me he has started his own fashion range.

“He doesn’t have an income, but intends start his own business.”

So the fashion designer bit was all fantasy?

Bench chairman Michael Jones sentenced Valentine to eight weeks’ imprisonment, mentioning his previous convictions for assaulting police officers, adding “You obviously have an issue with the authority of the police.”

He has issues all right...

NB: Remember when I did jury service? Well, this chap was one of my trials. Breach of restraining order. Clearly as mad as a hatstand, too. He dismissed his brief on the second day & opted to defend himself, with predictable results.

I knew I'd be seeing his name again. At least it's not for a murder.

Yet.