By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
My Romanian mate has just been called up and was shitting himself as he thought he'd done something wrong. He brought me the letter and I helpfully told him he was being deported...
Anyway after I'd made my apologies, I explained to him what it was, I've done it 3 times magistrates and Old Bailey but I've never had a coroners court. I had a google which wasn't particuarly helpful.
Anyone had a Coroners? I wanted to tell him what to expect.
Beer and Beef has made us what we are - The Prince Regent
My one and only experience of jury service - it was a VAT fraud case (£m+) - lead me to conclude two things that I would still stand by today (supported by other people’s similar experiences including those in the legal profession) :
You need specialised juries for complex financial/technical cases, and
If I ever found myself on the end of a prosecution, I would never admit guilt not matter how bang to rights they appeared to have me. Because there are always 2 or 3 muppets on a jury of your peers who will swallow any old sh1t giving you a great chance of being cleared.
Agree with both of those points.
My only experience of jury service was on a money laundering case with multiple defendants at Isleworth Crown Court involving millions of pounds. The case lasted six weeks. It took two days to select a jury for a start — there are a lot of people who can’t take that amount of time out of their lives and have good reasons not to do so (I had just retired so my excuses would be limited). A lot of the evidence was obviously technical; I could follow it as I used to work in the financial sector and even found some of it interesting. I doubt most of my fellow jurors did but I also think we all did our best when considering the verdict. The judge announced he would accept a majority verdict after a couple of days and the defendants were found guilty 10-2; the two dissenters just could not follow it.
Things that impressed me about the system. The jury selection process results in a reasonable cross section of society now that the grounds for avoiding jury service have been restricted. The particular judge seemed to work hard and was very good at the case management.
Barristers, on both sides, on the other hand did not impress me and lived up to my prejudices. It’s all about drama and acting, not about truth and justice.
I read a fascinating article about the evolution of jury selection. In the middle ages, a circuit judge would turn up in the middle of nowhere to try cases with no written evidence, and witnesses he could barely even understand. The jury would be the ones expected to know all about it, both the defendant and the victim - he's a wrong'un, his Dad was a wrong'un, all his brothers are the same, he definitely did it/had it coming.
Somehow we have now reached a point where jurors are supposed to be completely blank slates about the affair, hence the impossible quest to find 12 people in Minneapolis who haven't already got knowledge or opinions about George Floyd and Derek Chauvin.
Both quite graphic and not a nice experience; the first death was on one of our building sites, It was me who found the body unconscious (one of our shuttering carpenters) both myself and our on site engineer tried to resuscitate the poor sod while waiting for the ambulance, unfortunately we were too late and the fellow died there and then, inquest and then the coroners.
The second was I thought ridiculous; the clerk of the court wanted to get things moving quickly and gave us all a quick briefing but the guy 'topped himself' in a mental institute where he was being held for violent crimes, from memory it took about 4 hours (including a tea break) again it was quite graphic, I cant imagine that there all the same.
You better tell your mate though that he better turn up or the powers that be will be after him.
My Father had a profound influence on me, he was a lunatic.
Did jury once, lasted 4 weeks, so the lovely judge said we could be exempt from more Jurying for 5 years instead of 2. Very relieved it was a theft thing (a friend had a horrible killing of a small child), although a weird case with 4 defendants and 4 lawyers. Found it really interesting.
Was a lesson in judging books by covers for sure. One defendant looked surly, arms crossed, falling asleep etc. But the evidence against him was so flimsy, I'm not sure why it got to trial - even the copper said the police had bungled his home search and we acquitted him and two others of handling stolen goods. Anyway, after we spoke to the lawyers for him, and turns out the guy is absolutely lovely, the reason he was nodding off was because he couldn't afford to take time off work, so was working nights, coming home, sleeping for an hour, then coming straight to court. The whole case totally bewildered him (complicated story, the case, but he really was not in the slightest bit guilty) Poor bugger. His wife, who we also acquitted was in tears and hugging us outside after. She'd been terrified!
As we're telling court stories, here's one of the worst days of my life.
When I was court reporting in Northants there was this big story about a bloke who'd been punched in the back of the head in the smoking area outside some sulubrious nightclub in Wellingborough. Dead before he hit the ground, caught him just right in the back of the skull. My paper covered the death the day after, pictures of the flowers, death knock with the family all of that. Turned out the poor bstrd had just had a baby, so obviously all the coverage was "father of young baby killed outside nightspot" and stuff like that.
Anyway, by the time the case comes around I'm on courts for the paper. Trial got moved up to the big Crown Court in Nottingham, so I head up there for the week. First morning is spent entirely without the jury in the room, with the defence arguing that it should never be mentioned in evidence that the deceased has got a 1 year old daughter, because it's not relevent to the incident and it'll just prejudice the jury against the defendent. In the end the judge agrees, says it's not admisable and not to be mentioned. Jury called in, afternoon of evidence heard, and we break for the day.
Now, because I'm a nutter, I go straight to the train station and down to London because we're playing Palace at home that night (I'm sure it was Palace), and file my copy over the phone from the train. Obviously I tell the news editor that we can't mention the baby thing because it's been deemed inadmissable, but he gets really funny with me, saying we led with it at the time of the death, all the pics we've got of the deceased have the kid in it, starts pressing me on exactly what reporting restrictions were passed snd what the judge said and I had to be honest and say I didn't know exactly, and was now on a train where I couldn't check, but needless to say we can't mention it so don't. Hang up. Go to QPR. Get back to Nottingham at like 2am, get my head down in the Premier Inn.
Get to court the following morning, hungover to fck, and the defence is sitting there with a copy of our paper from the night before. The fcking news editor has ignored me, gone with the pic of the kid, called him a father in the headline, splattered it all over the front page. Defence moved for a mistrial and I got held in contempt of court.
Got to go through all this sometime soon as my brother-in-law took his life back in November.
told us could go on for as long as 12-18 months due to complexities and covid.
Thanks for the heads up on what to expect
Sorry for your loss. I had an identical experience 4 years ago. Took about 10 months (pre-covid, Irish judicial system) Very grim, listening to 'facts' about someone you knew and cared about being described so coldly. You will get through it, real pain is on the immediate family, so if it's your wiife's brother (as it was in my case) or whoever, keep a close eye on them, before, during and for a while afterwards.
As we're talking court experiences I had the misfortune of having to go to Crown Court after a few of us were charged (a year after the event) for protecting ourselves when Millwall fans attacked the pub we were drinking in at London Bridge on the Friday night game
Thankfully it never went to trial in the end as we had good solicitors who managed to argue that a jury wouldn't be able to decide if it was self defence or Violent disorder the judge dismissed the charge otherwise looking at a 8 day trial and most likely 18 months prison sentence if found guilty
The prosecution argument that we should of just allowed the Millwall fans in also helped us but must say it was an awful period and I wouldn't wish our legal system on anyone
"Things had started becoming increasingly desperate at Loftus Road but QPR have been handed a massive lifeline and the place has absolutely erupted. it's carnage. It's bedlam. It's 1-1."
No that's the thing, I'm the front man, I'm the reporter covering the case, I'm the one in court, news editor is sitting back in an office somewhere, it's on me. It was fcking terrifying.
They decided to continue with the case purely because it was in Nottingham, outside our circulation area, so the jury wouldn't have seen the paper unless they'd gone looking for it online (which I'm sure they all do, I would) and had they done that they'd have seen the original stories from the time anyway so it would be rather redundant.
My editor, my news editor and I had to make submissions to the attorney general explaining what happened, how it happened, decision making etc. Think we got a knuckle rap. We should have got battered, we were bang to rights, basically ignored the fcking judge. Pig headed news editor arsy because he's now short of a picture for the front page.
The bloke that did it was quite a good looking young lad, really didn't look 'the type' at all if you can say that. There'd been a dispute earlier in the night in the nightclub over a spilt drink or something, they had all this CCTV thatwe had to sit through. Once they were outside I think the bloke must have said something, and he didn't half hit him. Brutal.
The defendent worked as a salesman in a mobile phone shop. When they put him up on the stand he turned the fcking patter on. Came across as a right smarmy, full of himself git in a shiny suit, while the family of the deceased are all crying in the public gallery. Basically hung himself, jury unanimoused him. Judge even said in his summing up that they should try not to hold his mannerisms in the witness box against him, it's a nerve jangling experience and he'd probably defaulted to mobile phone salesman by accident.
Anyway they found him guilty and after the verdict it was revealed that he was already out on bail for losing his temper and thumping somebody else in the face a couple of weeks prior. Basically a good looking, baby faced lad, with a steady job, professional, but a temper about as long as his little finger.
What was the QPR score?
EDIT: Nevermind, just seen it was already asked. Just checking sources :-)
I've done Jury service twice now - both times I was foreman and delivered the verdict. Guess I shouldn't say any more about them.
I’ve done it three times for four different cases. I was foreman for the fourth case and was terrified I was going to say the wrong verdict when asked.
My only experience of jury service was on a money laundering case with multiple defendants at Isleworth Crown Court involving millions of pounds. The case lasted six weeks. It took two days to select a jury for a start — there are a lot of people who can’t take that amount of time out of their lives and have good reasons not to do so (I had just retired so my excuses would be limited). A lot of the evidence was obviously technical; I could follow it as I used to work in the financial sector and even found some of it interesting. I doubt most of my fellow jurors did but I also think we all did our best when considering the verdict. The judge announced he would accept a majority verdict after a couple of days and the defendants were found guilty 10-2; the two dissenters just could not follow it.
Things that impressed me about the system. The jury selection process results in a reasonable cross section of society now that the grounds for avoiding jury service have been restricted. The particular judge seemed to work hard and was very good at the case management.
Barristers, on both sides, on the other hand did not impress me and lived up to my prejudices. It’s all about drama and acting, not about truth and justice.
I’m now excused jury service after that marathon.
"Barristers, on both sides, on the other hand did not impress me and lived up to my prejudices. It’s all about drama and acting, not about truth and justice. "
Have to agree it is down to who performs the best rather than the truth. In the one time I was on a jury after the prosecution performance a guilty verdict was cast iron then after the defence had their say the defendant was clearly innocent. It was down to who performed the best not necessarily the truth
Murder of a young man in Battersea. A dreadful dreadful Experiance. the trial on verdict day made the front page of the evening Standard which on top of the harrowing case and the screams of anger and grief from opposing sides in the public gallery, made me feel awful for weeks after like i was albert pierrepoint or something.
I couldn't get the guttural howls of anguish from the defendants families and the bestial rage of threats to the defendants from the victims families, when the verdict was given, out of my head for a long time when i went to sleep at night. Police accompanied the jury back to the train station due to threats made to the jury, by the two defendants families.
2001 Drugs trial at Snaresbrook court. Much better for the soul. I Spent the week trying to break into the evedience room. £3 million pounds worth of Yayo imported into a breakers yard in stratford from Amesterdam.
[Post edited 19 Mar 2021 19:04]
"...The monkey is never dead, Dealer. The monkey never dies. When you kick him off, he just hides in a corner, waiting his turn."
My dad worked in criminal courts and so managed to arrange a school trip for a dozen or so sixth formers to attend court for the day. The case was a farmer who'd been bvggering his sheep. Was caught by local police just doing a routine community call, and talking to the farmer, who saw he seemed flustered, noticed he had a clump of fleece caught in his trouser zip. Literally caught by the fuzz. True story. Can't remember the sentencing, but the students left court somewhat shell-shocked.
Was doing a job I wasn’t enjoying and got the letter, expecting it to be dull.
Had a right laugh with the group I was with. Four cases all interesting in different ways and none of the trials were long or difficult to process. It does give you an appreciation for just how thick some people are and how at the whim of someone like that your life could be.
My jury experience was a real eye-opener. 2-3 people paying zero attention, 1 woman who lived in a parallel universe, and a mad bloke who thought he was some sort of forensic expert who wanted us to role play a fight in slow motion with him offering commentary and highlighting flaws in the prosecution’s case (“you can’t break someone’s jaw if they’re talking, because their mouth is open”).
Which one was you?
If it was the woman, it really is a parallel universe.
My only experience of jury service was on a money laundering case with multiple defendants at Isleworth Crown Court involving millions of pounds. The case lasted six weeks. It took two days to select a jury for a start — there are a lot of people who can’t take that amount of time out of their lives and have good reasons not to do so (I had just retired so my excuses would be limited). A lot of the evidence was obviously technical; I could follow it as I used to work in the financial sector and even found some of it interesting. I doubt most of my fellow jurors did but I also think we all did our best when considering the verdict. The judge announced he would accept a majority verdict after a couple of days and the defendants were found guilty 10-2; the two dissenters just could not follow it.
Things that impressed me about the system. The jury selection process results in a reasonable cross section of society now that the grounds for avoiding jury service have been restricted. The particular judge seemed to work hard and was very good at the case management.
Barristers, on both sides, on the other hand did not impress me and lived up to my prejudices. It’s all about drama and acting, not about truth and justice.
I got called to the Old Bailey in 83 and was really looking forward to it, trouble was it clashed with my college finals so I got off, never been called since.
Never done Jury service myself. At 68 and living in France I think I've missed out. However, my dad had an interesting case from 1968. It was the height of the anti-apartheid protests and the South Africans were set to play a test series in England. The protests were led by the National Union of Students whose President was Peter (now Lord) Hain. Not sure of the charges but there were a number of defendants, including said Hain, on 6 different charges. The trial lasted 6 weeks. At the end all defendants were cleared of 5 charges and found guilty on the remaining one. They were fined £1 and costs were NOT awarded against them. I have no idea how much the whole thing cost the taxpayer but it must have been millions.
Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the Earth all one’s lifetime. (Mark Twain)
Find me on twitter @derbyhoop
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
) I've had it before second only to Orthodox_Hoop's late dads Rakia. 
