Juries - selection

Jury selection
Criminal Justice Act 2003	Before the Criminal Justice Act there was a list of persons who could avoid jury service, or for whom it was thought inappropriate that they should sit on juries; the list included judges and police officers. The effect was that it became common for many people to avoid jury service for business reasons, or other other pressing public reasons, for example doctors and surgeons were seldom seen on juries. The net effect was that middle class employed people were effectively excluded leaving other categories, who were available for service. The Act removed almost all of the previous categories of individuals who could avoid jury service (Mental incapacity and some criminal convictions still apply). Many of the newly eligible individuals will have genuine difficulty in serving at the time specified in their summons or, in some cases, at all.
Home Office research in 1999. available here (paper 202)	Since the Criminal Justice Act 2003 the following information is of historical interest and indicates why there was a need to remove the classes of persons exempt from jury service. Around 480,000 people were summoned for jury service annually. Previously, less than half (about 200,000) were eligible. One-third was available for jury service, half of whom were given deferral to a later date. Of the remaining two-thirds, 13% were ineligible, disqualified or excused as of right, 15% either failed to attend on the day or had their summonses returned as ‘undelivered’ and 38% were excused. The most common reasons for granting excusal were medical (40% of all excusals) and care of young children or the elderly (20% of all excusals). Three-quarters of all deferrals were given for either work (39%) or holidays (35%). A total of 315 people known to be disabled were excused during the six weeks of the study. A third were deaf, a fifth in wheelchairs or with severe mobility problems and 6% were blind. Some commentators believe that potential jurors avoid jury service for doubtful reasons.
Lord Justice Auld review of the criminal courts published in 2001	Lord Justice Auld took the view that there was no reason why the risk of prejudice was any greater among those excluded than with anyone else sitting as a juror. A shopkeeper or house owner who had been burgled, or a car owner whose cars had been vandalised or person with strong views on legalising drugs or euthanasia could be as prejudiced as an excluded professional. Risk of prejudice or partiality could never be eliminated, he said. “The variety of prejudices that jurors can have are almost unlimited.” But provided the judge was satisfied that a potential juror was not likely to raise a reasonable suspicion or apprehension of bias, then the fairness of the trial should not be at risk.
Under the Act anyone summoned to do jury service is required to do it.	The discretion to defer or excuse is exercised by the Jury Central Summoning Bureau (JSCB), which administers the jury summoning system. The Act places a statutory duty on the Lord Chancellor (in whom responsibility for jury summoning is vested) to publish guidelines on the exercise of this discretion by the JCSB. All requests to be excused from jury service are centralised so they are all treated similarly.
Twelve persons chosen at random by computer from those on the electoral register. Anyone aged between 18 and 70 can be called	Since September 2000, jurors are selected for jury service by computer. The Central Summoning Bureau will select jurors from electoral rolls, check for any records of convictions, issue summonses and liaise with the courts on how many jurors are required. No one has any power to interfere with this process not the judge, the defendant nor the prosecution. Because the selection is random, it is the case that some people never get called, whilst others may be called more than once. Roughly, a person's chances of doing jury service during their lifetime are one in six.
Qualification for jury service Juries Act 1974 as amended by Schedule 33 Criminal Justice Act 2003 The following people are qualified for jury service:
Registered elector Resident for 5 years Not mentally disordered Not disqualified.	he is for the time being registered as a parliamentary or local government elector and is not less than eighteen nor more than seventy years of age; he has been ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man for any period of at least five years since attaining the age of thirteen; he is not a mentally disordered person; and he is not disqualified for jury service.
Discretionary excusal
(Deferral only)	Excusal is allowed for full-time serving member of Her Majesty's naval, military or air forces if the commanding officer certifies that it would be prejudicial to the efficiency of the service if that member were to be required to be absent from duty, But the serviceman or woman will still have to attend later.
Disqualified
On bail	A person who is on bail in criminal proceedings
Disqualified for life	A person who has at any time been sentenced - to life imprisonment detention during her Majesty's pleasure or during the pleasure of the Secretary of State, imprisonment for public protection or detention for public protection, to an extended sentence or to a term of imprisonment of five years or more or a term of detention of five years or more.
10 year disqualification period	A person who at any time in the last ten years has- served any part of a sentence of imprisonment or a sentence of detention, or had passed on him a suspended sentence of imprisonment or had made in respect of him a suspended order for detention, had made in respect of him a community order, a community rehabilitation order, a community punishment order, a community punishment and rehabilitation order, a drug treatment and testing order or a drug abstinence order
Former reasons for avoiding jury service abolished by CJA 2003, this means judges, teachers, nurses, doctors almost everyone except armed service personnel will have to perform jury service, subject to the Lord Chancellor's guidance
Lord Chancellor's Guidance	If a person is unable to sit at the time they have been summoned they will be offered deferral to another, more convenient, time. Only those who prove they cannot serve at any time in the 12 months from the date they are summoned will be excused, and then only in exceptional circumstances. Jury service lasts for up to 10 working days - is compulsory for anyone summoned who is on the electoral register. 1. Compelling reasons why eligible people could defer include: death or illness of a close relative, health reasons, pre-booked holiday, full time serving members of the armed forces where the commanding officer certifies that the person's absence would be detrimental and religious festivals. 2. Compelling reasons why eligible people could be excused include: insufficient understanding of English, certain care responsibilities and being a member of a religious order or society whose beliefs are incompatible with jury service (evidence must be provided). 3. A juror may appeal against a decision by the Head of the Jury Central Summoning Bureau to refuse an application for excusal but the appeal must be heard by a judge. 4. Section 321 of Schedule 33 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 abolishes the categories of ineligibility and excusal as of right contained in schedule 1 of the Juries Act 1974. 5. The Act also places a statutory duty on the Lord Chancellor to publish guidance about the way in which the Jury Central Summoning Bureau will exercise its function on discretionary deferrals and excusal under sections 9 and 9A of the 1974 Act. 6. The guidance was the subject of a consultation paper, Jury Summoning Guidance. The consultation period ended on 27 February 2004. The guidance is available on the Her Majesty’s Courts Service website, www.courtservice.gov.uk. 7. Under the new legislation anyone who does not wish to serve as a juror will be required to show "good reason" why he or she should not serve as summoned. It will then be for the Jury Central Summoning Bureau, taking account of the guidance issued by the Lord Chancellor, to consider whether or not to grant the application for excusal or deferral.
Police officers as jurors	Police officers are still barred from sitting in Scotland, Northern Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Hong Kong, Gibraltar and various US states.
R v Abdroikof [2007] HL	It appears from this decision of the House of Lords that where a prospective juror would be biased or give the appearance of bias he should stand down. If a police officer or a solicitor employed by the Crown Prosecution Service had sat on a jury there are some questions to be asked. On the particular facts of the cases, would a fair-minded and informed observer conclude that there was a real possibility that the jury was biased. It has to be borne in mind that Parliament had, by enacting the Criminal Justice Act 2003, that such persons were eligible to sit on juries, envisaging that any objection to their sitting would be the subject of judicial decision. Nevertheless, it had to be doubted whether Parliament had contemplated that employed Crown prosecutors would sit as jurors in prosecutions brought by their own authority. In R v Khan (208) the Court of Appeal, while declining to give guidelines said that police and prison officers and CPS staff should be identified before the trial to avoid allegations of bias, it remains to be seen if this means, that as a group, they will continue as jurors.
Judges as jurors	Scores of judges, including members of the Court of Appeal, including Cherie Booth QC (wife of Tony Blair), have sat as jurors. The Lord Chief Justice has given guidance to judges who are called to sit as jurors, advice here.