DCA gets tough on jury exemption

GUIDANCE: applications for excusal owing to work commitments face greater scrutiny, lawyers are warned

CAREER BRIEF

The Gazette guide to working in the law

Applications by lawyers to defer or be excused jury duty because they are too busy will be closely examined, new guidance issued this month by the Department for Constitutional Affairs has warned.

The guidance for summoning officers applies to the new jury duty rules, which removes the exemption for some classes of people, including judges and lawyers.

They came into force on 5 April.

Jury service - which usually lasts for up to ten working days - is compulsory for all registered electors in England and Wales, aged between 18 and 70, who have lived in the UK, Channel Islands or Isle of Man for a continuous period of at least five years since the age of 13.

The guidance says the normal expectation is that everyone will serve at the time for which they are summoned.

It recognises this may not always be possible and gives the summoning officer discretion to defer the individual to a more appropriate time.

'Only in extreme circumstances should a person be excused from jury service,' it says.

There is a specific exception for judges and 'those involved in the administration of justice' where they may be known to a party involved in the trial.

In such circumstances, the duty will normally be deferred or moved to an alternative court.

If this is not possible, then they will be excused.

However, jurors may also be excused for valid business reasons.

'Applications of this type should, however, be looked at closely and granted only if there would be unusual hardship,' it warns.

'A small business is an example of a case where such a hardship might be

suffered.'

A separate provision advises that applications for excusal on the grounds that jury service will conflict with work commitments should be deferred in the first instance unless excusal is 'clearly necessary'.

Applications for excusal or deferral cannot be accepted from third parties, including employers.

A Law Society spokesman said it supports wider eligibility generally, including for lawyers, but not for 'those who are key players in the system', such as criminal law

judges, police officers and practising criminal lawyers.

He said: 'We think there is too great a risk that their professional knowledge of the "behind-the- scenes" workings of the system might unduly influence a jury.'

The Society considers that the only criterion for excusal should be that the interests of justice would otherwise be thwarted - such as a juror unable to communicate properly in English - and backs 'rigorous enforcement of the obligation to undertake jury service', he added.

Neil Rose