Custodial sentence for holiday juror
A juror who pretended to be ill to go on holiday has been jailed for 56 days.
Janet Chapman had telephoned the court during a four-week trial to say she would miss two weeks because she was suffering from sciatica. But Chapman had phoned in the message from Malta where she had flown that morning for a holiday.
At Preston Crown Court today, Judge Russell told her she had ‘deliberately deceived’ court for her own means - a serious contempt of court only punishable by an immediate jail sentence.
He said: ‘Jury service is one of the most important public duties that a citizen of this country can be called upon to perform.
‘It is inconvenient, but an essential part of our democratic system. It is essential that the duty of jury service is taken seriously by those called upon to perform it, and that it is performed diligently and responsibility.’
The court heard Chapman and her fellow jury members were warned at the start of the four-week robbery trial they needed to explain in advance why they could not serve.
When Chapman failed to appear on the Monday morning of the fourth week, enquiries were made at her home and in the neighbourhood to find her. She had visited her doctor’s surgery on the Monday complaining of a back problem and was issued with a sick note for seven days.
But she flew to Malta the following morning, later claiming she was unaware she was not allowed to go on holiday while absent from jury duty.
Judge Russell described this claim as ‘ludicrous’, adding that ‘if you were too ill to attend court you were not fit to travel to Malta for the holiday’.
News
- Poor will suffer from court fee changes, MoJ warned
- Overwhelming public backing for legal aid: poll
- Fight PI changes, says MASS chair
- Mass meeting of barristers takes a stand on QASA
- Pannone turns to fixed-price mediation post-Jackson
- Grayling asks for quality standard for PCT firms
- 7,000 lawyers to hit the streets for free legal advice
- Pilot aims to limit clinical negligence solicitors’ fees
- Will-writing could still be regulated
- In-house growth accelerating
- Appeal Court applies Russian law in dispute
- Insurers to revamp third-party code
- Court interpreters reject new contract deal
- European data plan labelled ‘demented’
- Saudi Arabia accepts registration of female lawyer
- Don’t worry about Jackson fallout – judge
- North-west paralegal initiative
- French revolution
- ‘Google’ asylum refusals
- Criminal legal aid cuts to reach £370m
- SRA’s popularity slips
- Traffic courts to be set up
- Economy 'testing access to justice'
- MoJ plans crackdown on ‘so-called’ experts
- Midlands ABS issues ‘join us’ offer to insurers
- Law Society Excellence Awards now open for nomination
- Desperate PI firms breaking referral fee ban – AXA chief
- Jurors ‘confused’ on new media contempt
- End-to-end negligence defence practice sets up as ABS

Comments
How discovered?
Interesting case. Any idea on how the deception was discovered?
I get the feeling this occurs alot more than is actually discovered by the courts.
Jurors do need some support
What concerns me most is the level of support jurors receive. The Judge will tell them to bring any problems to him, but in reality a Judge is a remote and forboding figure and that will rarely happen.
This lady presumably agonised over her ill-fated decision. It would have taken an experienced criminal law solicitor about 2 minutes to explain the facts of life in such an instance, and much pain could have been avoided.
The persons who are most often approached by jurors for advice are (anecdotally) the Ushers. It is easy to see how someone might be misadvised, if advice is sought at all.
Ridiculous Reaction
It is typical of the so called "justice" in this country that when a presumably upstanding citizen makes an error in judgement, albeit a serious one that the courts immediately slam her in prison, whereas some delinquent teenager carrying a knife and stealing from old ladies will get a suspended sentence.
Here Here Steve D
I completely agree to Steve's comment above: absolutely disgusting.
would a fine not suffice?
wo