Should Fame Be An Acceptable Reason Not To Perform Jury Service?

According the captain of Plymouth Argyle, Carl Fletcher, it is...

The former Wales international appeared at Plymouth Crown Court to explain he could not perform his duty, saying he had to prepare for a match at Cheltenham Town, and that he was too well-known in the area.

However, Judge Francis Gilbert dismissed his excuses, saying more famous people than him had served on juries.

The judge said: "Jury service is an important public duty everyone has to do, including judges, however well-known they are.

"Captaining Plymouth Argyle is not sufficient reason for not doing jury service. Employers are required to give you time off for jury service as a matter of law.

"So far, what you've said is not sufficient. You will have to come next Monday unless you make a proper application.

"Lots of well-known people, some more famous than you, have been required to sit on juries."

Fletcher snapped: "I am glad I have to pay my taxes to do jury service,” then left the courtroom.

Now whilst I think Carl Fletcher is a bit of an idiot for thinking that captaining Plymouth Argyle makes him "famous" in the first place it does raise an interesting question. Should certain people, with certain levels of fame, be exempt?

I think perhaps it should be. Certain people are going to attract undue publicity to cases. Imagine you were in court on a charge of petty theft or something. Would you really want somebody like Jordan and the paparazzi circus that follows her anywhere near your proceedings?

Maybe defendants should be given the right to object to certain proposed Jury members? What do you all think?

I think opening it up for the defendant to object might be going a bit far but it's a valid point in the case of major celebrities. I certainly wouldn't want Jordan deciding my fate, forget the press gang I'd be concerned that her judgement is affecting my future

baring in mind shedloads of people are complete arseholes,devoid of common sense or sense of duty or justice,but have never been in trouble with the law so that makes them elligable for jury service,i think all jurors should have some sort of iq test before they can judge the fate of others.the jury system is flawed.....i got out of it cos i would of lost loads of money by not working,they pay travelling but only start paying any real money if the trial lasts for ages...... i just told them i was diagnosed depressed and i could not give a fair judgement.....simples............and as a footnote i got called for jury service despite having a criminal record.....dont know the ins and outs of law but i deffo got called up despite my crim record.....it was spent, so like i say i aint a law person so cant tell ya if its allowed and shit.

Just need a criminal record to avoid Jury service huh?? I have a cunning plan

my crim convictions are spent so i dont know if that had anything to do with it but i got called up,if you want out them just say you are a bit of a mental case and provide them with the name of the local looney bin.....worked for me,i got a letter back saying that my services would not be required lol.

Pretend you're nutter eh Munchkin??

Well if that's all there is to it I've really got nothing to worry about

i dunno if they checked it out or not or just thought to hell with this guy,if they checked the mental health unit they would of seen that i in fact had been a patient,i was admitted to get off the booze and drugs.all i know is they didnt ask me for any proof from the docs or anything.this was a while ago now,dunno if you could get out of it as easy as i did but its worth a punt if you dont want to do it.

Juries should be a profession not some fool off the street

If it was a profession then it could easily manipulated..........

NR_TOAB wrote:If it was a profession then it could easily manipulated..........

And it isn't now?

Not easily

NR_TOAB wrote:Not easily

It's manipulated daily by people's racist, sexist, ageist and bigoted views

Ever been on jury service?

Yes, that's true. That in itself is something which cannot be helped as those views are opinions which everyone is entitled to. But that's not the kind of manipulation I was thinking about. I'm thinking more on the lines of having certain people on Jury to help or hinder a case. It's easier to manipulate a small pool than a random one.........

Never been on Jury service and hopefully I never will be Why do you ask?

NR_TOAB wrote:Yes, that's true. That in itself is something which cannot be helped as those views are opinions which everyone is entitled to. But that's not the kind of manipulation I was thinking about. I'm thinking more on the lines of having certain people on Jury to help or hinder a case. It's easier to manipulate a small pool than a random one.........

Never been on Jury service and hopefully I never will be Why do you ask?

I didn't realise people were entitled to have racist views

When you go on jury service you'll definetly agree with me

Of course people are entitled to "racist" views. People are entitled to any views they want. The problem doesn't come in until they act on those views. Everyone holds a prejudice towards something or someone for good, little or no reason. It's a bit wrong to tell people they can hold a prejudice against one thing for one reason but not against another thing for the same reason. Afterall, you seem to have a prejudice towards anyone with views which you would classify as "Racist". How does your prejudice differ to theirs? And why are you entitled to your prejudice but they are not entitled to theirs??

If I go on Jury service I’ll be sure to let you know my thoughts on the experience.

I'm inclined to agree with NR.

The whole point of having 12 laymen picked at random to act on a jury is to ensure there is a fair representation of society.

If you only pick people with certain political views (i.e. non-racist whatever that actually means) that in itself is biased and the outcome would be unfairly reached. Using the same methodology would it be fair to te defendant to have a jury consisting of only Labour voters or Tories? Depending on the nature of the offence of course not.

It's not members of the jury and their own personal views that are on trial. Until you commit a criminal offence everyone has the right to think whatever the hell they like.

"Didn't realise people were entitled to have racist views"??

How exactly do you propose to police our thoughts then?

I don't agree with professional Jurors, but they should be chosen carefully, they hold your future in their hands, I would object to some yob having any kind of say in a court of Law.