Jury service selectors becoming very aggressive

Forums › Off topic › Jury service selectors becoming very aggressive

1 | ... | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14

1907 posts

Uber Geek

#1077674 1-Jul-2014 11:06

KiwiNZ: ...or would you prefer Government staff to act outside the law?

That would certainly seem more convenient in this case...

Does the government give a reason for denial and make their thought process known in your particular case?

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1077696 1-Jul-2014 11:11

DravidDavid:
KiwiNZ: ...or would you prefer Government staff to act outside the law?

That would certainly seem more convenient in this case...

Does the government give a reason for denial and make their thought process known in your particular case?

I cannot answer that as I have only ever been granted dispensation. I can however say that with the Ministry I worked for we quoted the appropriate policy and authorising section of the Act.

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek

#1077697 1-Jul-2014 11:12

KiwiNZ:
1. The job is/was by no means secure.
2. It was a real job with real stress and pressures.
3. I would have loved to have only worked 40 hours per week.

The decisions they make MUST be supportable by the empowering Act of Parliament, if the reason being put forward is not supported by evidence or is not authorised under the act they cannot grant it, or would you prefer Government staff to act outside the law?

I completely disagree with you. I've known people with the opposite opinion of yours (in local govt too, wastage is huge).

Incidentally, the letter I sent to them was legally acceptable in law as were the last 5 times. They just chose to ignore my explanation this time. This lack of consistency shows disrespect towards people who take the time to return their forms. Basically they are saying they think I am lying.

Anyway, thats all i have to say, my opinion is not altered by you.

Bung

6488 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1077704 1-Jul-2014 11:23

Maybe the original excuses were denied simply because there wasn't the supporting letter from employer/client. If so it would have been helpful if they had pointed that out.

Peter Williams the barrister was interviewed on radio recently and he was emphatic that the jury system should continue. He acknowledged that the low pay was a problem that needed attention.

Any chance that the extra money to pay jurors will come from within the Court system looks unlikely as their latest money saver "Paperless Courts" seems to have collapsed.

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1077811 1-Jul-2014 13:05

surfisup1000:
I completely disagree with you. I've known people with the opposite opinion of yours (in local govt too, wastage is huge).

Incidentally, the letter I sent to them was legally acceptable in law as were the last 5 times. They just chose to ignore my explanation this time. This lack of consistency shows disrespect towards people who take the time to return their forms. Basically they are saying they think I am lying.

Anyway, thats all i have to say, my opinion is not altered by you.

Given your rather aggressive attitude and in view of the fact that whether sufficient evidence has been supplied can be open to interpretation, personally it's hard to take your outrage very seriously. Look, if they want more information, just supply it. It's really not that much work and a normal, understanding client should be happy to supply the letter you requested and got. So quit with all the drama and accusations that people are just out to ruin you.

And this is coming from a real life lawyer with trial experience who despises jury trials....

timmmay

20582 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1077813 1-Jul-2014 13:05

KiwiNZ: I worked for the Government...

1. The job is/was by no means secure.
2. It was a real job with real stress and pressures.
3. I would have loved to have only worked 40 hours per week.

The decisions they make MUST be supportable by the empowering Act of Parliament, if the reason being put forward is not supported by evidence or is not authorised under the act they cannot grant it, or would you prefer Government staff to act outside the law?

I've worked in government. Some people work like demons, some people do virtually nothing. Politics and stupid games are rampant, and productivity is awful because of it.

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek

#1077851 1-Jul-2014 13:29

dejadeadnz:

Given your rather aggressive attitude and in view of the fact that whether sufficient evidence has been supplied can be open to interpretation, personally it's hard to take your outrage very seriously. Look, if they want more information, just supply it. It's really not that much work and a normal, understanding client should be happy to supply the letter you requested and got. So quit with all the drama and accusations that people are just out to ruin you.

And this is coming from a real life lawyer with trial experience who despises jury trials....

Aggressive? Not sure about that. Just trying to make a living and these people are interfering in my life at a time when I really don't need this.

I did supply more information, I just hope it will be enough for them.

Hopefully you will get called to be on a jury one day when it is most inopportune. Then you may have some empathy.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

DravidDavid

1907 posts

Uber Geek

#1077865 1-Jul-2014 13:39

surfisup1000:Hopefully you will get called to be on a jury one day when it is most inopportune. Then you may have some empathy.

He wont. He's a lawyer. :D

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1077876 1-Jul-2014 13:48

surfisup1000:
dejadeadnz:

Given your rather aggressive attitude and in view of the fact that whether sufficient evidence has been supplied can be open to interpretation, personally it's hard to take your outrage very seriously. Look, if they want more information, just supply it. It's really not that much work and a normal, understanding client should be happy to supply the letter you requested and got. So quit with all the drama and accusations that people are just out to ruin you.

And this is coming from a real life lawyer with trial experience who despises jury trials....

Aggressive? Not sure about that. Just trying to make a living and these people are interfering in my life at a time when I really don't need this.

I did supply more information, I just hope it will be enough for them.

Hopefully you will get called to be on a jury one day when it is most inopportune. Then you may have some empathy.

"Aggressive" is frankly the best and nicest way I had of describing your attitude. But since you prefer the more precise version, I'd describe your attitude towards the MoJ staff who, on the face of it are just doing their jobs, to be one dripped with pomposity ("....some pencil pusher in a 40 hour week government job") and self-importance ("These people sit there ruining other peoples lives while in a secure 9-5 government job. They have no idea of the pressures of those with real jobs"). There are lazy, inefficient people everywhere. For every supposedly really important, hard-working self-employed guy, there's probably another self-important sole-trader who doesn't reply to client inquiries promptly and works for himself only because he's unemployable etc. How would you like to be stereotyped?

And you don't appear to read very well either. I've already indicated more than a couple of times on here that I actually have experience conducting trials as a lawyer, so I'm quite aware of the realities of being on a jury, thank you very much. What's more I actually spent 3 years lawyering for judges whose duties included presiding over jury trials and provided opinions and advice on jury trial issues. So please quit with your self-important assumptions about others.

bagheera

539 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1077879 1-Jul-2014 13:52

Bung: Maybe the original excuses were denied simply because there wasn't the supporting letter from employer/client.

also maybe the fact that you he had already used that reason 5 time in a row might have a factor in it - after 5 year of "i am to busy to do jury service" was 1 to many.

MikeAqua

7785 posts

Uber Geek

#1077891 1-Jul-2014 14:12

I've done jury service once. By hook or by crook never again!

I found the process to be disproportionate to the alleged offence, very frustrating, very efficient and actually a poor quality process. They guy was guilty as sin - caught red handed, multiple witnesses. But he had legal aid and exercised his right to a jury trial. We used 5 days of court time spanning three calendar week on the trial. I would estimate that close to half of the pre-deliberation time was spent doing nothing but waiting due to some sort of delay or other. Deliberation spanned 4 days and nearly entered a second week. Only conspiracy by a frustrated subset of the jurors forced the blindingly obvious correct outcome on the Friday.

What ticked me off overall is that the court staff placed little value/respect on the service of the jurors - they treated/fed/communicated with us very poorly. We didn't even have comfortable seating during the trial - the judge and court staff did of course.

I was lucky to be paid by my employer, but worked the evenings and weekends to keep up so my family were the ones who lost out, and actually I did my jury service tired to the point of nodding off after lunch most days.

I gained a new appreciation for the movie 12 angry men (great movie esp. the original). Being a juror wasn't hard or intellectually challenging work by any measure (country club hours, dumbed down and slow process). It was physically uncomfortable, frustrating and tedious. I've never been irritable so many days in a row. I was like a bear with a sore head.

My experience turned me from pro-jury to anti-jury. I would hate to have to rely on a jury if I was charged. I'd have more faith in a group of judges.

If I was I in charge :) .....

I would replace the current jury system with an inquiry, verdict and sentencing process conducted by a panel of 3 judges and 2 professional community jurors who serve one calendar year as paid officers of the court, answerable only to the judge. Make this kind of jury service compulsory and very, very difficult to get out of. Include training and on-going support, make it very well paid (e.g. 90th percentile of NZ salaries) and require employers to hold jobs for people (as per parental leave).

Mike

networkn

Networkn
32353 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1077913 1-Jul-2014 14:20

dejadeadnz:
surfisup1000:
dejadeadnz:

Given your rather aggressive attitude and in view of the fact that whether sufficient evidence has been supplied can be open to interpretation, personally it's hard to take your outrage very seriously. Look, if they want more information, just supply it. It's really not that much work and a normal, understanding client should be happy to supply the letter you requested and got. So quit with all the drama and accusations that people are just out to ruin you.

And this is coming from a real life lawyer with trial experience who despises jury trials....

Aggressive? Not sure about that. Just trying to make a living and these people are interfering in my life at a time when I really don't need this.

I did supply more information, I just hope it will be enough for them.

Hopefully you will get called to be on a jury one day when it is most inopportune. Then you may have some empathy.

"Aggressive" is frankly the best and nicest way I had of describing your attitude. But since you prefer the more precise version, I'd describe your attitude towards the MoJ staff who, on the face of it are just doing their jobs, to be one dripped with pomposity ("....some pencil pusher in a 40 hour week government job") and self-importance ("These people sit there ruining other peoples lives while in a secure 9-5 government job. They have no idea of the pressures of those with real jobs"). There are lazy, inefficient people everywhere. For every supposedly really important, hard-working self-employed guy, there's probably another self-important sole-trader who doesn't reply to client inquiries promptly and works for himself only because he's unemployable etc. How would you like to be stereotyped?

And you don't appear to read very well either. I've already indicated more than a couple of times on here that I actually have experience conducting trials as a lawyer, so I'm quite aware of the realities of being on a jury, thank you very much. What's more I actually spent 3 years lawyering for judges whose duties included presiding over jury trials and provided opinions and advice on jury trial issues. So please quit with your self-important assumptions about others.

My advice is stop wasting your breath. He won't let logic or fact get in the way of the outrage he feels. Unfortunately not much you can do about it. Ultimately he needs to meet his obligations under law or find a lawful and acceptable way to be excused. The fact he doesn't want to do either takes away significantly from sympathy that might have been originally garnered.

afe66

3181 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1077959 1-Jul-2014 15:01

I wonder if having been a prosecution witness plays a role as I have never been called on a jury?

I was called as a witness the day before my final university exams after the defendant had successfully deferred the case three times..

Was an interesting hour or two, took my mind off the exam the next day.

His defence was he wasnt liable for property damage because he was under the influence of drugs....

A.

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek

#1077971 1-Jul-2014 15:22

dejadeadnz:
"Aggressive" is frankly the best and nicest way I had of describing your attitude. But since you prefer the more precise version, I'd describe your attitude towards the MoJ staff who, on the face of it are just doing their jobs, to be one dripped with pomposity ("....some pencil pusher in a 40 hour week government job") and self-importance ("These people sit there ruining other peoples lives while in a secure 9-5 government job. They have no idea of the pressures of those with real jobs"). There are lazy, inefficient people everywhere. For every supposedly really important, hard-working self-employed guy, there's probably another self-important sole-trader who doesn't reply to client inquiries promptly and works for himself only because he's unemployable etc. How would you like to be stereotyped?

And you don't appear to read very well either. I've already indicated more than a couple of times on here that I actually have experience conducting trials as a lawyer, so I'm quite aware of the realities of being on a jury, thank you very much. What's more I actually spent 3 years lawyering for judges whose duties included presiding over jury trials and provided opinions and advice on jury trial issues. So please quit with your self-important assumptions about others.

Self-employed people don't stay that way very long if they behave how you describe.

Honestly, I have not gone through and read all of the pages of posts but on reading your vitriol I will not bother.

You're getting nasty & personal. People make generalisations all of the time. Get over it and stop seeking personal offence.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1078010 1-Jul-2014 15:40

I am not sure if there is already, but if not there should be greater flexibility for those that are self employed. In many cases their income cannot continue if they take time out to serve unlike wage and salary earners. The Justice department can only apply flexibility afforded them by legislation or approved policy.
Changes would probably have to be made in Parliament.

1 | ... | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14