11 Aug. 2010. – 11:37:02
We are all familiar with the toddler hiding behind a sofa but whose feet are sticking out in public view and who wonders how the adults knew she was there; she has no conception at that age of other peoples` viewpoints and she concludes if she can`t see somebody then somebody can`t see her. I think there is a similarity in perception when one has been away on holiday……logically the world continues to spin and events happen but because we have been far away in mind and/or in body we are still with the thought processes of that toddler and can be surprised that things happen without our being on the spot.
And so it has been for the last week. The Ministry of Justice is consulting on plans to raise the upper age limit for jury service, currently 70, or abolish it altogether. I have blogged previously on the jury system and observed what are in my opinion inadequacies in allowing virtually anybody but prisoners, lords and lunatics to serve. A classic example was reported two weeks ago that at Birmingham Crown Court a juror was doing puzzles instead of concentrating on the fraud case before her. At Worcester Crown Court she was fined £1,200. But returning to the possibility of 70+ jurors surprise surprise; the judges don`t relish the idea. In fact they are positively opposed. Since they generally retire at 70 they are hopping up and down that ordinary people might still be compos mentis when their honours are doing their gardens. In all their eloquent response they fail to consider that they are and were getting paid to judge but jurors over seventy will generally be retired and performing their task as a civic duty. I think the judiciary should initiate a debate upon the universal eligibility of jurors; after all they are on that topic, if no other, better informed than most.
And so it has been for the last week. The Ministry of Justice is consulting on plans to raise the upper age limit for jury service, currently 70, or abolish it altogether. I have blogged previously on the jury system and observed what are in my opinion inadequacies in allowing virtually anybody but prisoners, lords and lunatics to serve. A classic example was reported two weeks ago that at Birmingham Crown Court a juror was doing puzzles instead of concentrating on the fraud case before her. At Worcester Crown Court she was fined £1,200. But returning to the possibility of 70+ jurors surprise surprise; the judges don`t relish the idea. In fact they are positively opposed. Since they generally retire at 70 they are hopping up and down that ordinary people might still be compos mentis when their honours are doing their gardens. In all their eloquent response they fail to consider that they are and were getting paid to judge but jurors over seventy will generally be retired and performing their task as a civic duty. I think the judiciary should initiate a debate upon the universal eligibility of jurors; after all they are on that topic, if no other, better informed than most.
No comments:
Post a Comment