Justice is a smoking gun ... I mean ... smoking ban

My jury service is now over and I'm back to my normal routine. I'm going to write very little about the case I was on, the court proceedings, or anything like that, but there is one aspect of what happened over the last two weeks which concerns me.

The UK now has a smoking ban in all public buildings and workplaces. Obviously, this includes court buildings. And, as a juror, you're not allowed to leave the building unless released by the judge (if you're on a case) or the jury clerk (if not on a case). It seems common for most courts to give mid-morning and mid-afternoon breaks, as well as lunch, so - while the evidence is being presented - smokers shouldn't have to go more than a couple of hours at a time between cigarettes.

But then comes the jury deliberations. The twelve of you are locked into a jury room (with private loos en suite) and not allowed to leave until you reach a verdict. Lunch, and anything else you need, is brought in to you. But you can't go out. So you can't smoke. (For the record I don't smoke, and never have).

All that I will say about the case I was on was that it was seen by the judge to be straightforward, and give the events and times of the final day.

We were required to be present at 9.45 am. So that's the time of the last cigarette. We were sent out to deliberate our verdict at about 11.20. Around 12.45 our lunch was delivered, and the usher informed us that no verdicts would be taken between 1.00 and 2.00.

By 2.00 we hadn't quite achieved a unanimous verdict, but weren't far off; ten were in agreement with what became our final verdict, with two unconvinced rather than opposed. One of those was a smoker. It was now over five hours since the last cigarette, and there wouldn't be another one until we had agreed a verdict, given it in court, and been discharged.

The verdict became unanimous within a few minutes of that. I don't know if the need for some nicotine influenced the change of mind, but it could have been a factor. And we took only about three hours to reach our verdict; some cases will take days.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that some people are convicted - and some freed - because of jurors' addictions. And that worries me.

A contemptible situation

Over lunch one day in early August, one of the women I work with was describing a visit she'd made to the Old Bailey. The conversation moved on to jury service, with a number of people saying how much they would like to do it, while I commented that I'd done it once (16 years ago) and didn't want to do it again.

The following Saturday morning, the post (gosh, we had postal deliveries then) brought my jury summons for the Old Bailey. I suppose I should have expected it.

I was called for 1st October, which wasn't brilliant timing as the deadline for submitting our bid for our next five years' funding at work was 2nd October and I'm normally involved right at the tail end of any submission but, after discussions with my manager, we agreed not to seek deferral; the funding submission was going to be complete by the end of the previous week as our Director was due at an international conference on 30th September.

On 19th September I returned from a meeting to find I had voicemail; unfortunately, our new state-of-the-art system doesn't record the first ten seconds or so of any message left, so all I had was the final seven digits of a 'phone number. I decided to try prefixing those digits first with 0207, then 0208, and hoping whoever it was would call back if neither of those worked.

The 0207 option got me through to the Jury Summoning Service, so I guessed I was on the right track.

Sure enough, a woman there (and now I so wish I'd taken her name) explained that they had too many people due to come in for jury service on 1st October, and would I mind not serving now? This meant my name would go back into the normal draw and I'd have the same chance as anyone of being called again. Did I mind? Not in the least. In fact, I'm sure my work would be thrilled. I asked if I would receive written confirmation I was not required at the present time, and was assured I would.

I let everyone involved in the funding submission know I wasn't now going to be out of the office for the final couple of days, which news was welcomed as we were now running a little late, and the Director had announced she was sending someone else to the conference in her place.

Personally, I was pleased not to be faced with commuting into London for a couple of weeks; I've done quite enough of that, and now enjoy the confort of commuting in the opposite direction.

****************

The written confirmation that I wasn't required for my jury service never came. But, by then, I was very involved in the submission and didn't have the opportunity to chase it up.

****************

The submission had to be received by our funders by 5.00 pm on Tuesday, so I booked a motorcycle courier to leave our place at 3.00. The last page came off the printer at just about quarter to three, and I sealed the envelopes and walked them over to reception. I returned to my desk at 2.50 and the 'phone rang.

It was a clerk from the Old Bailey, asking where I was.

It appears that the woman who told me I wasn't required not only failed to send me written confirmation, but also failed to inform the court that I was excused. So they were expecting me on Monday. Which puts me, by not being there, in contempt of court.

I was asked if I was available to start the following Monday, 8th October.... Was I really likely to say no?

So tomorrow I'll be fighting my way onto an overcrowded commuter train to start my jury service. Let's hope I don't get a long case.