We need to reform jury service - not just trials

Another day of the working-parent juggle successfully navigated.

When I got home, a letter was waiting on the doorstep. At the top were the words “HM Courts and Tribunals Service” and, in bold, “it is a criminal offence to ignore this letter”. As I struggled with my toddlers' shoes, I read the words: "You have been selected for jury service," starting in just a few weeks’ time.

Let me be clear: I believe strongly in justice and civic duty. I’m the daughter of a police officer and a former elected councillor. I recognise the importance of playing our part in society and supporting the justice system. But the reality is that for many people, a jury summons is not just inconvenient; it can be almost impossible to manage.

Take my own circumstances. I don’t work Fridays – so who will look after my children on those days? The letter says I could claim up to £64.95 per day for additional childcare costs. But not only is that less than the cost of a nursery day for two children, but you also can’t simply magic a nursery place out of nowhere at short notice.

Like many parents, I rely on flexible working so I can drop off and pick up my children. Lengthy days in court would make that incredibly difficult – and for single parents it would be even harder.

But this issue goes beyond working parents. Many people would face financial hardship because of a jury summons. Employers must allow time off for jury service, but they are not legally required to pay staff while they are away. Many do – including mine - but not all.

For the self-employed, the situation can be even more challenging. People in professions from hairdressing to plumbing, carpentry to cleaning often rely on hourly or daily work. If they don’t work, they simply don’t get paid.

Jurors can claim up to £64.95 per day for loss of earnings, which works out at just £8.11 per hour based on an eight-hour day – well below the minimum wage. And that is a combined cap. If you lose income and face additional childcare costs, the financial hit is significant.

Creating financial hardship for people performing their civic duty simply isn’t right.

As the Juries Bill progresses, only the most serious cases will end up in court. There is logic to that: a faster justice system and less crowded courts. But it also means that those serving on juries are increasingly likely to deal with complex and often distressing crimes.

Jury service usually lasts around ten days, but it can be significantly longer. Once a trial begins, jurors must stay for its full duration. A friend of mine sat on a trial for nine weeks. That is a huge financial and logistical burden to place on ordinary people.

What is the solution? At the very least, jurors should not face financial hardship for stepping up to serve. Compensation for loss of earnings and additional costs should reflect the real financial impact of jury service.

We might also consider a more flexible approach to eligibility. You have roughly a one in three chance of being summoned for jury service in your lifetime. Why not introduce a temporary opt-out system? People would remain in the jury pool, but could defer service for a limited period – perhaps two or five years – during particularly challenging stages of life, such as raising young children or starting a new business.

Being tried by a group of your peers is a cornerstone of our justice system and an important democratic principle. But if we want people to step up to this civic duty, we need a more compassionate system that recognises the realities of modern life.

____________________

Rebecca Langton is a Board Director at leading communications firm PLMR, former Nottingham City Councillor and mum to two young girls.

LBC Opinion provides a platform for diverse opinions on current affairs and matters of public interest.

The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official LBC position. To contact us email opinion@lbc.co.uk