Banned wagon
CONCERNS are often raised about the brevity of the prison sentences served by some serious criminals. But at least the government has moved to ensure that one irresponsible group of people will henceforth be deprived of their freedom: middle-class jury-dodgers. The Home Secretary has announced that no one will be able any longer to sneak off jury service on the pretext that they have something more pressing to do; everyone will have to serve, even judges.
The idea of civic service is a good one, and the concept of a jury made up of 12 randomly picked citizens is central to our system of justice. But one has to ask: who is really being punished — the criminal or the poor individual snatched by the state and frogmarched to a courtroom in order to convict him?
There is a very good reason why many middle-class folk are desperate to avoid jury service: they have businesses to run, and have no one who can cover for them during two weeks' enforced absence. There is some compensation available for those who will not receive salaries while serving in the jury-box, but it is pitiful. The absolute maximum that any juror can claim, and only then if they have served more than ten days on a jury, is £133.39. Not a huge amount if a major contract falls through as a result of absence.
To force everyone to do jury service regardless of their personal circumstances shows a contempt for the private sector, For a public servant such as David Blunkett, feather-bedded with pension rights, paid leave and sickness pay, jury service comes as but a little adventure; not so the self-employed plumber who receives money only for the work he puts in. MPs' pay has risen by 50 per cent in the past five years, the excuse being the need to attract quality candidates. If the government wants quality jurors, it will have to pay them
the going rate, too. Ross Clark
Previous page
