Jury Excuse - How Many People Have Been Rejected Wrongfully?

LManeki Angel Fund on 11/06/2025 - 14:19
Last edited 12/06/2025 - 16:11

Curious, has anyone had their excuse rejected wrongfully?

It is the last day since I put in my request and it seems the day is drawing to the end of the business day in a few hours and it is drawing closer and closer.

My thoughts are it will be best to receive the fine and contest it. Has anyone gone down this path and would you recommend it?

I do not want to go into the full details, but my excuse is in the "definitely in the automatic exemption types".

Update:

12/06/2025

No email or notification that I have been excused.

I will give it a few more days, but I will also put into another exemption application again just in case there was some negligence involved. Summons date is sometime in July, so I can give them another 10 working days.

Honestly, I also saw that the wording of the email states "May be required to attend" which is different to "Must attend" which means you do not actually need to attend and it might be better for myself not to attend due to my personal circumstances.

Obviously, I am going to need a case guardian as well as I will be unable to attend court and I will be asking them to seek costs against the NSW government, so I will go through the motions but I will definitely be challenging any fine that comes my way, especially since I would have given reasonable notice that I am exempt.

Hopefully this doesn't have to turn out that way and the government does the right thing on round 2 of the application, or maybe it's just delayed. I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and they are probably just overloaded, but I am willing to exercise the heavy hand of the law to protect my own interests.

It is getting to a point where this is beyond ridiculous.

Education & Work

Comments

  • Protractor on 11/06/2025 - 14:26
    +12

    Step up

    • simplystu on 11/06/2025 - 14:32
      +2

      Or do a crime - even when under 16 (however so minor) …

      Then never jury duty again - as will be excluded for rest of your life.

      Talk about - "a jury of your peers".

      • Morphio25 on 12/06/2025 - 06:49
        +1

        You actually have to be convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment for I think it's 2 years or more in order to gain permanent exemption from jury duty. At least that's the way it is in SA.

    • RedHab on 12/06/2025 - 09:30
      +1

      Also jury nullification (look it up) is about the only way for citizens to void bad laws our politicians pass.

      Just don't mention it in selection, you won't be picked.

      • Protractor on 12/06/2025 - 10:04
        +3

        That's great. Got a list of bad laws overturned this way? Sounds like a superior organised operation.

    • RealUltimatePapo on 13/06/2025 - 19:44

      I love that movie!

  • Baysew on 11/06/2025 - 14:36
    +2

    Jury Excuse - How Many People Have Been Rejected Wrongfully?

    420.

  • jv on 11/06/2025 - 14:59
    +7

    If you turn up on the day wearing a Donald Trump mask, they excuse you straight away…

    • CocaKoala on 13/06/2025 - 17:51

      Or just claim that you could tell if a person is guilty or not just by looking at their eyes.

    • nobro25 on 13/06/2025 - 20:17
      -1

      Or wear a rainbow shirt and identify as a sex offender. They're quickly excuse you and can't do anything. Because anything else means they're discriminating you because you can literally identify as whatever nowadays apparently with no repercussions.

  • tabz on 11/06/2025 - 15:04
    +6

    This says you can do it on the day: https://www.service.nsw.gov.au/referral/apply-to-be-excused-…

    In person

    On the day you report to court for jury service, take any supporting documents, such as letters from your employer or doctor with you. To ask to be excused, you can speak to:

    • a Sheriff's staff member while you're still in the jury assembly area, or
    • the judge or coroner when you're called into court (if your reasons are health-related or might cause you embarrassment or distress, you can write out your application and ask for it to be handed to the judge).

    Since you mentioned you definitely should be automatically exempted, just bring your supporting documents and you shouldn't have a problem.

    • dufflover on 12/06/2025 - 11:33
      +1

      When I got picked for a case half the room excused themselves prior to the final ballot draw. It was a confidential written on paper thing that the judge went through and every single one of them was excused.

      Just write some vague thing like "I know this person or that person or went to school with them".

      Won't spare you the day or potentially stop you getting rescheduled but in the end you stay off a case.

      (No, I didn't do that and in the end got picked but I didn't mind)

      • Chandler on 12/06/2025 - 12:19
        +4

        Just write some vague thing like "I know this person or that person or went to school with them".

        It's treason perjury, then

      • md333 on 12/06/2025 - 13:38
        +2

        I think they don't want to take a risk of someone failing to turn up partway through the trial. Not really in anyone's interest to try to force jurors who don't want to be there to turn up.

  • Duckie2hh on 11/06/2025 - 15:11
    -1

    I don't understand why people want to skip jury duty so much. Don't people cherish the thought of punishing criminals?

    • jv on 11/06/2025 - 15:14
      +33

      I don't understand why people want to skip jury duty so much.

      financial reasons for one…

      • MrFrugalSpend on 12/06/2025 - 10:58
        +2

        Indeed - you should totally be entitled to the award wage for our sector of work + penalty rates if applicable + reimbursement of your travel and parking expenses.
        It's only fair, we all have to live.

        • jv on 12/06/2025 - 14:24
          +13

          Some people run their own business, an award wage won't cover costs and salaries…

      • Embaloo on 12/06/2025 - 14:23

        Pretty sure one can receieve regular wages + jury duty payment on top… financial incentive?

        • jv on 12/06/2025 - 14:25
          +1

          Pretty sure one can receieve regular wages

          For all the people they employ and other business costs ???

        • MrFrugalSpend on 12/06/2025 - 22:16

          I thought it was if you are employed say full time salary, your employer has to pay you still and the jury duty payment in that case goes to your employer who has to foot the bill for the difference for you being there. So its the self-employed / business owners who suffer.

          • binagran on 13/06/2025 - 17:32

            @MrFrugalSpend: TIL it actually depends on what state you are in.

            Here in WA, yes, your employer is required to pay you regardless of how long the case lasts (and also include any allowances, overtime, etc. you normally get). And if you're self employed, you can apply to be reimbursed.

            NSW only requires payment for first 10 days. After that is at the discretion of the employer.

        • risque122 on 13/06/2025 - 10:59

          Incorrect..

          1. Payment by the employer only applies for the first 10 days (i.e. if a court case lasts for months, you would not receive your normal wages).

          2. Payment is top up payment only. You do not receive your regular wages + jury duty…

    • Mechz on 11/06/2025 - 15:33
      +12

      Or saving the innocent?

        • Save 50 Cent on 12/06/2025 - 02:51
          +24

          I hope you never get called for jury duty then with that mentality

          • skid on 12/06/2025 - 08:07
            -2

            @Save 50 Cent: You'd be surprised how common this line of thought is. Not me tho, I'm prepared to hang a jury if need be. But maybe people of a certain age (e.g. boomers) think differently.

            • fredblogs on 12/06/2025 - 19:21
              +4

              @skid: Imagine thinking people of a certain age think a certain way. You shouldn't be on a jury either.

              • skid on 12/06/2025 - 21:38

                @fredblogs: That's why there are twelve people on the jury, not one.

            • Protractor on 12/06/2025 - 19:32
              +1

              @skid: Is that you Mark?

          • idonotknowwhy on 12/06/2025 - 13:46
            +1

            @Save 50 Cent: I can't find it now, but I remember nearly a decade ago, someone wrote about being their time on a jury, how he had to convince everyone else why the dude was innocent. Later it turned out he really was, and he recounted a woman on the jury saying "Yeah, by that point I knew he was innocent, but I didn't want to kick up a fuss and everyone was going with guilty".

            • Hangryuman on 12/06/2025 - 16:08

              @idonotknowwhy: "I knew he was innocent, but I didn't want to kick up a fuss and everyone was going with guilty"

              that's scary but also how juries are likely to work - where strong personalities who've already decided and just want to finish with it start leaning on the softer members to pressure them to change their minds

              innocent people are often punished - any aboriginal folk in this discussion ?

              people born into poverty and traumatic situations may collect criminal records simply by being in the wrong place at the wrong time

              as a contrarian I'd like to think I'd stick with my opinion - better ten guilty go free than one innocent person is jailed ?

              I showed up to court with a doctor's letter last month and my head wrapped in bandages and was excused for 3 months - if I get called up immediately after that, I'm hoping to show up with pre-booked travel arrangements …

              • bargaino on 13/06/2025 - 02:17

                @Hangryuman: That sounds extremely naive. You should try sitting in on a magistrate's court session some time, and your romantic notions may slam into a hard wall of reality.
                What do you imagine "the wrong place at the wrong time" to be?

        • Muppet Detector on 12/06/2025 - 13:09

          Maybe they're found not guilty because the prosecution couldn't prove that the accused committed the offence?

          • RogerLoger on 13/06/2025 - 06:57
            +1

            @Muppet Detector: That's part of my point. Police are usually sure a crime is committed, or they don't take it to court. Police are human. Sometimes they stuff it up (investigation of evidence presentation).

            The jury's role is to consider whether something is proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, not whether a person is innocent.

      • payless69 on 13/06/2025 - 00:12

        Like Lindy Ch? They were from a small church so reason to build an example?

    • geekcohen on 11/06/2025 - 16:12
      -6

      Who wants to sit in a courtroom for roughly 6 to 8 hours a day and listen to all this information, then have to decipher it all. God help the people sitting at Morwell going on 6 weeks now!

      Then you get compensated peanuts for it as well, like $10 to $20 a day I believe (could be wrong) and I believe your primary job doesn't pay you as well.

      • sam-1966 on 11/06/2025 - 16:26
        +3

        Depends on where you work. Some continue to pay you and you are required to give them any money you receive from the court.

      • brifog on 11/06/2025 - 16:28
        +7

        $40 per day in Victoria + employer required to make up the difference to your normal salary. Only thing you miss out on is super.

        • Drj55 on 12/06/2025 - 08:09
          +10

          What an insult. That wouldn't even pay for parking and lunch.

      • Benoffie on 11/06/2025 - 17:48
        +6

        I wont lie, the compensation is crp.

        It needs to be minimum wage.

        And as you're only attending when jury pool is selected and then only if on trial, in a month you may only be in for a few days max.

        Long trials are relatively rare in the overall scheme

        • coffeeinmyveins on 11/06/2025 - 18:50
          +15

          It needs to be minimum wage.

          yeah….no

          It needs to be MY SALARY.

          Why should I pay to be on jury duty? Pay my wage, if it's that important of a "civic duty".

          • Muppet Detector on 12/06/2025 - 13:21
            +1

            @coffeeinmyveins: It's more than a "civic duty". Jury duty is actually enshrined in law at both state and Cth levels. It will be under your state's Jury Act.

            Avoiding jury duty without legal authorisation, justification or excuse is a Criminsl offence which carries penalties which could include fines, incarceration and a permanent criminal record.

      • Muppet Detector on 12/06/2025 - 16:45
        +2

        Nobody values a jury until the day they find themselves needing one for a crime they've been accused of committing.

    • JIMB0 on 11/06/2025 - 16:27
      +3

      The whole beyond a reasonable doubt generally prevents much punishment. There's always one person on the jury who is not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. I suspect they just wanted the free lunch 2 days in a row.

      • skid on 11/06/2025 - 16:57
        +1

        There's always one person on the jury

        Guilty

        • iCandy on 12/06/2025 - 10:43
          +1

          It’s nothing to be proud of.

          • skid on 12/06/2025 - 11:16

            @iCandy: Don't think it's right to just go along with the majority and say "guilty" or decide that the prosecutor is probably right. Wouldn't be able to sleep at night wondering if I'd put an innocent person in jail.

            • jv on 12/06/2025 - 14:27

              @skid:

              Wouldn't be able to sleep at night wondering if I'd put an innocent person in jail.

              The point would be that you thought they weren't innocent…

              • tenpercent on 12/06/2025 - 17:49

                @jv:

                The point would be that you thought they weren't innocent…

                …beyond reasonable doubt. Not:

                you're pretty sure they aren't innocent but wouldn't bet the house on it.

      • stickingly on 11/06/2025 - 17:52
        +20

        On the jury I was on, half the people didn't understand the difference between "beyond reasonable doubt" and "he probably did it".

        My jury experience destroyed my faith in the jury system, due to half of them being unable to understand the law relevant to our case due to lack of basic intelligence and common sense. And then there were a few that didn't give a shit and said they didn't care and would just go along with whatever the rest decided.

        • iCandy on 12/06/2025 - 10:45
          +1

          Some jurors, usually retired, use it as a fun day out. They cannot find someone guilty unless they see a video of them committing the crime. They think they’re sending them to the electric chair. If you are this type of person, please don’t go to jury service.

        • Muppet Detector on 12/06/2025 - 13:32

          To be fair, the judge isn't allowed to explain what "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" means. He is specifically prohibited from trying to explain or define it beyond saying something like "these are all commonly understood words. Beyond means beyond, reasonable means reasonable and doubt means doubt. You are to apply the meaning to those words as you understand them"

          Judges who have strayed from explanations provided by the Judge's Bench Book have had their cases over turned.

          As for jury members unable to understand the relevant law, this is a duty of the judge to make them understand. If questions of law arise during deliberation, the judge is supposed to be informed and then provide further instruction.

          • stickingly on 12/06/2025 - 15:09

            @Muppet Detector: In my case the judge spent a few hours summarising and explaining the law, as if he were talking to 2 year olds. I thought he did a very good job, but many of my fellow jurors didn't have the attention span or interest to listen and process it. Some complained afterwards about how boring it was. It was then up to a few of us on the jury to explain it to the others.

            We had been through this whole 2 week process of listening to skilled lawyers, witnesses, expert witnesses and the judge going into a lot of detail on the case. The decision was then up to a group of people, many of whom disregarded all that and thought he was guilty because the guy was an unsavory deadbeat who they didn't like the look of, which in their view meant he probably did it. In reality, it was pretty obvious that there was nowhere near enough evidence

            • Hangryuman on 12/06/2025 - 16:24

              @stickingly: yes it's scary to see how some people make decisions

              my benchmark was a friend's mother around 1983 when Bob Hawke was running for Prime Minister

              she said flat out that she could never trust him

              I asked why

              she said "his eyebrows are too close together!"

            • Muppet Detector on 13/06/2025 - 13:03

              @stickingly: I can see where that would be problematic.

              Some of these legal concepts are extremely difficult to get your head around and often operate quite differently to how members of the general public think they do/should.

              Most crimes are made up of multiple elements. Every element must be proven BARD for the crime to be proven. If there are 5 elements, all five must be proven, it's not enough to only prove four of those elements.

              IMO, when directing the jury, the judge should only address one charge at a time and then only one element of that crime at a time.

              Once the jury have reached a decision about one element, then bring them back out and address the next element and so on.

              Otherwise, it's just too much information to process at once, regardless of your attention span. Not even the lawyers learned the intricacies of the law in a one off crash course that covered everything all at once.

              It's fine for the judges and lawyers who are doing this stuff all the time, but in most cases, Joe citizen isn't usually familiar with the legal minutia and just has a grasp of the main concepts such as "murder is bad".

              In many ways, Joe citizen's legal knowledge hasn't evolved that much further than the Ten Commandments.

              I am continually surprised to find people who don't know that certain things are illegal and at how many don't even realise the prevalence and significance of contracts within their daily lives, far less how contracts are formed and performed.

              It still blows my mind that basic legal classes are optional at school. By now I would have thought they'd be an ongoing compulsory class taught across several year levels.

          • GordonD on 13/06/2025 - 13:20
            -1

            @Muppet Detector:

            the judge isn't allowed to explain what "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" means

            How do they get it so spectacularly wrong sometimes. Like George Pell. One boy accused him of committing sexual assaults on him and another boy in an open room in a church during a major religious ceremony being led by Pell. There was no evidence supporting the boy's accusation. Twenty two people said it either couldn't have happened or they would have seen it, or that it definitely didn't happen, including the other boy, repeatedly. And yet the jury found him guilty. And the appeals court upheld that. If he hadn't had the resources available to him to take it to the High Court his conviction would have stood. I don't know what the man did or didn't do in his life, but that surely was the most extreme example in recent time of a jury completely ignoring the complete absence of any actual objective evidence, and the principle of beyond reasonable doubt.

        • Hangryuman on 12/06/2025 - 16:32

          "On the jury I was on, half the people didn't understand the difference between "beyond reasonable doubt" and "he probably did it". My jury experience destroyed my faith in the jury system, due to half of them being unable to understand the law relevant to our case due to lack of basic intelligence and common sense. And then there were a few that didn't give a shit and said they didn't care and would just go along with whatever the rest decided."

          to be tried by a jury of your peers - suggests that if you are an idiot, then you may get a bunch of idiots deciding your fate

          at least it is intended to avoid vigilante mobs, such as reported in India, where someone posts something inflammatory on social media and a mob storms their house and drags someone out of their home and kills them in the street

          I think one car seen visiting a town - someone posted that they had bad intentions - killed - murdered by a mob - later found it was completely mistaken identity and someone who was just passing through …

          or deliberately fake news or someone with a grudge but insufficient evidence who figured this was a good way to attack someone they didn't like.

      • johnno07 on 12/06/2025 - 00:45
        +9

        The whole beyond a reasonable doubt generally prevents much punishment

        This is literally the point. It massively reduces the rate at which innocent people are punished, at the cost of it being more difficult to punish people who are actually guilty.

        • Muppet Detector on 12/06/2025 - 13:39

          Indeed, I think it was Blackstone in the 1750's who said it is better for ten guilty men to go free rather than cause one innocent person to suffer.

          Most people probably agree that loss of liberty or other unjust punishment isn't a very good thing for those who aren't guilty of committing a crime.

          • tenpercent on 12/06/2025 - 17:47

            @Muppet Detector: There's nearly a hundred known wrongful convictions in Australia since 1922. The system could be better.

            • Muppet Detector on 12/06/2025 - 17:53
              +1

              @tenpercent: One a year ain't too bad though, as long as I'm not that one.

              How many have been convicted where it's been deserved though?

              More of a worry, how many have either avoided being caught or found not to be guilty through a fault in procedure of law etc?

            • Muppet Detector on 13/06/2025 - 13:20

              @tenpercent: Additionally, I think as science and technology advances, this may help to whittle down those who are falsely convicted whilst exonerating others who had previously been convicted.

              At one time, fingerprints were the gold standard. Even their significance is enhanced as we develop new technologies to identify, collect and compare them.

              In recent times, DNA has been launched into the lime light and seems to be a more accurate source of identity and process.

              Even heard how a person's ear can be used as a unique identifier similar to how finger prints are thought to exist.

              I'm also assuming that the increase in the use of CCTV monitors, other similar devices and dash cam etc as well as the recording/filming feature in most people's phones go towards providing a better quality of evidence of guilt or innocence.

              Even the GPS feature in a lot of phones have been beneficial as have other electronic footprints such as text, email, socials and storage of computer activities.

              Much more proof to support or defend an allegation is available for consideration these days.

              Hopefully these advancements help to reduce the number of people falsely convicted and identify those who would have otherwise gone undetected in the past.

            • Muppet Detector on 13/06/2025 - 13:33

              @tenpercent: That was an interesting article.

              At a guess, I'm thinking Australia may be skirting what seems to be their human rights responsibilities by arguing that our legal process prevents "arbitrary detainment" and probably that Australian citizens really don't have a legally protected right to liberty, meaning that there is no obligation to compensate for doing that, unless some significant flaw in the legal process is identified I suppose?

              Dunno.

      • Butterchurner on 12/06/2025 - 09:28
        +2

        I'm only doing what I think is right. I believe Freddy Quimby should walk out of here a free hotel!

    • try2bhelpful on 11/06/2025 - 17:47
      +4

      I got called up for Jury duty and went into the jury selection pool. The case was where a guy who had been a doctor was “allegedly” kiddy fiddling about 40 years ago. I think he was now going a touch senile. I was very glad I didn’t get selected on that one.

      • iCandy on 12/06/2025 - 10:47
        +1

        I was in the pool for the Max Sica trial and a trial from the Joh Bjelke-Peterson era fraud and corruption trials. They told us it was expected to last a year. A YEAR! I was so glad to not get on that one.

        • Protractor on 12/06/2025 - 10:49
          +2

          You dipped out on a perfect opportunity to write a book about the JB-P trial.It's a movie in the making.Watch this space

      • Muppet Detector on 12/06/2025 - 13:40

        Was that the Pediatrician Dr Davis who wore the bow ties?

        • try2bhelpful on 12/06/2025 - 17:38

          Not sure I wasn’t selected from the jury pool.

    • coffeeinmyveins on 11/06/2025 - 18:49
      +11

      because your employer nor the government will pay 100% of your wage, so you are in effect paying to sit on jury duty.

      I worked out that if I had to sit on a 12 week trial I'd lose tens of thousands in salary.

      So yeah, that's why. But feel free to "give one for the team".

      Don't people cherish the thought of punishing criminals?

      Kinda missing the point there mate. I hope you never serve on a jury with that attitude

      • mskeggs on 11/06/2025 - 19:18
        +10

        All the places I've worked as a permanent employee paid normal wages less the daily stipend.
        But you are right there is a reason the juries are often full of pensioners and students.

        • babolimp on 12/06/2025 - 19:59
          +2

          for a short case in NSW (10 days), you would get 100% wage compensation. like you said some from the gov, some from your employer, but once the case goes over 10 days, you are only getting ~$250 a day (equivalent to ~$60k p/a). for us high income earners (all of ozB), we'd be taking an unwilling pay cut and our family would suffer for it.

      • Muppet Detector on 12/06/2025 - 13:42
        +1

        It's not "taking one for the team". It's one of the things that are compulsory for the benefit of being an Australian Citizen.

      • Muppet Detector on 13/06/2025 - 13:42

        How many trials requiring jury attendance last 12 weeks though?

        Google tells me that most trials requiring jury participation last for 3-5 days.

        I'm thinking twelve weeks might be a bit of an outlier.

    • tenpercent on 11/06/2025 - 19:37
      +3

      I can't wait to do jury duty to help victims of pointless laws escape the abuses of the State.

      "Not guilty"

      • Protractor on 11/06/2025 - 19:45
        +1

        Good for you!.That'll show the man./s

        • tenpercent on 11/06/2025 - 19:48

          You're confused.
          It's got nothing to do with "the man" (whoever that may be).
          Normal people don't go to the aid of victims just to stick it to whoever victimised them.

          • Protractor on 11/06/2025 - 19:56

            @tenpercent: "Normal people don't go to the aid of victims just to stick it to whoever victimised them?"

            That's exactly what you said you were doing. I think you're confused if you don't know what sticking it to the man means.

            stick it to the man
            verb
            (idiomatic) To take some action intended to defy a source of oppression such as globalization, commercialization, big business or government.

            • tenpercent on 11/06/2025 - 20:24

              @Protractor:

              That's exactly what you said you were doing.

              No. I said:

              I can't wait to do jury duty to help victims of pointless laws escape the abuses of the State.

              That the victimiser, 'the State', is also 'the man' is not the point. Helping the victims is the point.

              • Protractor on 11/06/2025 - 20:29

                @tenpercent: Nice try. Even you can back peddle out of that statement above.
                Anyway,
                What are they victims guilty of, in your fertile imagination? I'm keen to understand the morality of a 'not guilty' verdict even before you hear the evidence of this imaginary case.

                • tenpercent on 11/06/2025 - 20:36

                  @Protractor: Depends what they are charged with. Note I said:

                  victims of pointless laws

                  If they're charged with rape, murder, etc, then I would have to consider the case on its merits.

                  • abuch47 on 12/06/2025 - 09:19
                    +1

                    @tenpercent: @Protractor: can you two kiss already, the sexual tension is off the charts.

                    • Protractor on 12/06/2025 - 10:10

                      @abuch47: 3 is a nicer number/
                      You busy?

                    • tenpercent on 12/06/2025 - 11:13

                      @abuch47: I said…

                      If they're charged with rape, murder, etc

                      And your first thought is…

                      the sexual tension is off the charts

                      I hope you're only into role play.

    • Morphio25 on 12/06/2025 - 06:52

      Because sitting in a trial is aids as (profanity). I've done enough of them now to know I'd never want to be a juror.

    • Muppet Detector on 12/06/2025 - 13:06
      +2

      Jury don't actually punish the criminals in Australia.

      They sit in a stall with eleven other strangers with whom they're not supposed to engage with, sitting in really uncomfortable chairs for hours, days and weeks on end and prohibited to check in on OzBargain, other social media or take selfies or make tik tok content to upload.

      You're on show for any of the defendant's thug mates to identify you and seek a slow torturous retribution on all jury members, their families and puppies if the accused is found guilty.

      Even if the accused is found not guilty, there's now a whole other bunch of aggrieved persons on the plaintiffs side now intent on inflicting their own brand of vigilante justice.

      Then, you can only pee and eat if the judge gives you permission even though the dude sitting next to you has head lice and bad breath.

      Until finally, you're sent back into an undersized hot box designed to make you feel uncomfortable to encourage faster deductions, with those eleven other smelly people until all twelve of you can come to the same decision without one off you doing something dodgy requiring a mistrial.

      Then, if you do manage to come to a genuine unanimous decision before they make you watch paint dry to prevent a nervous breakdown, if you declare the accused to be guilty, he gets to watch you and give you dirty looks.

      And after all that? It's not the jury who gets to punish the bad dude, the judge gets to do that at some time in the future when you're not even there to see it.

      • Hangryuman on 12/06/2025 - 16:36
        -2

        was this your actual experience - or just your prejudice … ?

        • Protractor on 12/06/2025 - 19:35
          -2

          The latter for sure.

        • Muppet Detector on 12/06/2025 - 20:40
          +1

          Which part of it is wrong?

          • SwarlesBarkley on 13/06/2025 - 17:12

            @Muppet Detector: I can't speak on the hypothetical case or jurors, but I can confirm that in Perth the deliberation rooms are modern, fully air conditioned and quite spacious.

    • jacross on 12/06/2025 - 18:49

      Sure but if you get the wrong case you may have to see something you definitely don't want to see.

    • gromit on 12/06/2025 - 21:08

      Did my duty, 6 weeks of misery listening to druggies that have smoked so much weed their brains are totally fried and being stuck in a small room with nothing but pen and paper hiur after hour while they argue points of law about what you are allowed to see or hear. Would only wish it on my worst enemies

      • Protractor on 12/06/2025 - 21:10

        That would be akin to a full half hour exposed to the One Nation AGM

      • Duckie2hh on 13/06/2025 - 09:47

        Did you enjoy the free cookies and tea.

        • gromit on 13/06/2025 - 11:22

          for the first day or two, after that you really don't want to see em anymore.

          • Duckie2hh on 13/06/2025 - 13:32

            @gromit: I do wish they offered nicer lunches.

            • gromit on 13/06/2025 - 17:38

              @Duckie2hh: The Sheriff in charge of us took pity on us a few days and arranged some restaurant lunches and gave us a few choices for ordering in, but most days it was pretty much a selection of pretty boring sandwiches. For the 6 weeks we spent more time in the Jury room than the court room as various points of law were argued. Only positive outcome was an instruction from the judge at the end that we had done our duty for life and if ever called up again we can reference this case and be excused if we so wish.

    • node modules on 13/06/2025 - 15:16

      The juror may also be punished. I've seen employees get PIP'd.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join