This paper sets out for consultation the proposed new guidance to be used by the Jury Central Summoning Bureau (JCSB) when exercising their discretion to defer or excuse a person summoned for jury service in England or Wales. This is to bring fully up to date the guidance already used by the Jury Central Summoning Bureau (JCSB) in the light of the provisions of new legislation.
The Criminal Justice Act radically changes eligibility for jury service, in that it removes almost all of the current categories of individuals disqualified from, ineligible for or entitled, as of right, to excusal from jury service (Mental incapacity and some criminal convictions will still apply). As with those currently required to serve as jurors, many of the newly eligible individuals will have genuine difficulty in serving at the time specified in their summons or, in some cases, at all. This makes it even more important than at present that the JCSB deals with all requests for excusal from service, or deferral of the time, fairly and consistently. The Criminal Justice Act therefore requires the Lord Chancellor to issue guidance to ensure that all relevant issues are addressed.
Another issue on which views are sought is the period after jury service which people should be exempt from another period of service. This currently stands at two years (Under section 8 Juries Act 1974). It is open to discussion whether this period is the right one.
It is not intended that the new guidance should cover every possible circumstance but it should establish a general approach for the JCSB in taking fair and consistent decisions. Therefore it is not the aim - even if this were achievable - that every possible situation should be addressed in any detail. Indeed the general principle that the Criminal Justice Act introduces - that every eligible individual between the ages of 18 and 70 should be required to perform their public duty to serve as a juror - would make this a next to impossible task. The emphasis is, therefore, on deferral, rather than excusal.
The paper also sets out the latest position on how the Department for Work and Pensions are making changes to improve the system for those summoned to jury service whilst on Jobseeker's Allowance.
This consultation is being conducted in line with the Code of Practice on Written Consultation issued by the Cabinet Office. It falls within the scope of the Code. The Code criteria set out in Annex A has been followed.
As this consultation only seeks views on the guidance to be used by the JCSB, no Regulatory Impact Assessment has been prepared. The costs to the JCSB are expected to be minimal. The proposed guidance will not in itself lead to any additional costs or savings for businesses, charities or the voluntary sector.
The Home Office produced a full Regulatory Impact Assessment on the proposals to remove the categories of ineligibility and excusal as of right in November 2002. A copy is attached at Annex B.
Please send your response by 27 February 2004 to:
Mark Cooper
Department for Constitutional Affairs
Criminal Justice Delivery Unit
4th Floor
Selborne House
54-60 Victoria Street
London SW1E 6QW
Tel: 0207 210 1488
Fax: 0207 210 8725
Email: mark cooper
When responding, please give your name, address and, if applicable, your organisation. If you are responding on behalf of a group or organisation please give a summary of the people and organisations you represent.
The Department may wish to publish responses to this consultation document in due course. Please ensure your response is marked clearly if you wish your response or name to be kept confidential. Confidential responses will be included in any statistical summary of numbers of comments received and views expressed.
Further copies of this consultation paper can be obtained from Diane Robinson at the above address, by emailing - Diane Robinson, or by phoning 0207 210 1477.
I am very pleased to be publishing this consultation paper on the guidance to be used by the Jury Central Summoning Bureau. Every year about 480,000 people are summoned to sit as jurors, usually in a criminal case. Following the enactment of the provisions in the Criminal Justice Act to remove the categories of ineligibility and excusal as of right from jury service, fewer people will need to be summoned to ensure the same number of serving jurors. Expanding the pool of potential jurors in this way will ensure that juries better reflect the communities from which they are drawn, and improve public confidence in the justice system as a whole.
Everyone has something unique - their own experiences - to bring to a jury. Experiences and knowledge will differ, yet each juror will be asked to consider the evidence presented and then apply their common sense in order to determine whether or not the defendant is guilty.
When a jury reaches a verdict, they are not only making a decision that affects the individual defendant, they are also making a decision that affects the communities in which they live. It is for this reason that the Government regards jury service as one of the most important civic duties that anyone can be asked to perform. Few decisions made by members of the public have such an impact upon society as a jury's verdict.
However, whilst it is vitally important that people undertake this public duty, the Government recognises that jury service also affects the lives of those summoned.
The guidance set out in this consultation paper is intended to strike a balance between the needs of society in having a representative jury to hear cases, and the needs of the person summoned to undertake jury service. I believe the guidance recognises and takes account of how jury service can affect the lives of people already subject to a multitude of conflicting demands.
Finally, let me offer my thanks to all those who have sat, or will be sitting on a jury in the future. Your commitment to ensuring that justice is done greatly increases people's confidence in the criminal justice system and helps to shape the society in which we all live.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
What are jurors?
Jurors are chosen at random from the electoral register to serve on a jury - their task is to decide the outcome of a criminal trial in the Crown Court. They will be among many people chosen each year for jury service and they will have an opportunity to be involved in the legal system. Jurors hear the more serious criminal cases such as theft, burglary, and drugs offences. Jurors also hear cases involving murder and rape, although these types of cases are less common.
Jurors may also be needed to serve in a civil case, such as libel, though this does not happen often. When it does, the trial will usually take place in the High Court or a county court. Jurors might also be needed to serve in a coroner's court.
There are 12 jurors in a Crown Court jury, whose task is to consider the evidence presented throughout the trial and then reach a verdict of 'guilty' or 'not guilty' based on that evidence. The 12 jurors will be a randomly selected cross-section of society and will be asked to take an unbiased approach to the case to ensure that a fair trial takes place.
Qualification for jury service: current position
Under section 1 of the Juries Act 1974 (the 1974 Act), every person who:-
for the time being is registered as a parliamentary or local government elector and is not less than eighteen and not more than seventy years of age;
has been ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man for any period of at least five years since attaining the age of thirteen;
is not a mentally disordered person; and
is not disqualified from jury service (because of criminal convictions),
is qualified to serve as a juror and be liable to attend for jury service when summoned.
Schedule 1 of the 1974 Act sets out three categories of person not qualified for, or excused from, jury service (annex D). They are:
Those who are ineligible - this group includes the judiciary, others concerned with the administration of justice, the clergy and mentally disordered persons.
Those who are excused as of right - people over 65 years of age, Members of Parliament, the Armed Forces, those from medical and other similar professions, and members of certain religious bodies the tenets or beliefs of which are incompatible with jury service fall within this category. If a person is excused as of right then they have the choice whether or not to do jury service when summoned, providing that they can show to the JCSB that they fall within this category.
Those who are disqualified - those with certain criminal convictions are covered by this category. It includes those who have served, or are serving, prison sentences or community orders of varying degrees of seriousness and those on bail in criminal proceedings.
Additionally, section 8 of the 1974 Act allows the JCSB to excuse a person who has already sat as a juror in the last two years. Each year, approximately 4,000 people summoned currently exercise this right (0.8% of jurors summoned). In theory multiplying this figure would show the impact of lengthening this timescale. For example, if the period were extended to five years, one would expect approximately 10,000 people each year to exercise this right (2% of jurors summoned).
The Government recognises that a juror who has carried out his or her civic duty should not be expected to do so again for a reasonable period of time. The 1974 Act prescribed a two year timescale because it was considered that two years is a reasonable period for a person to be excused jury service having sat as a juror. However, in his Review of the Criminal Courts (chapter 5, paragraph 224), Lord Justice Auld suggested that consideration be given to lengthening this timescale.
The Government would welcome views as to whether the two-year period set out in the 1974 Act is a reasonable interval between serving as a juror.
The jury summoning process
All jurors are selected at random by computer from the electoral register. Anyone on the electoral register between the ages of 18 to 70 may be selected even if they are not currently eligible to serve on a jury. Because the selection is random, it is the case that some people never get called, whilst others may be called more than once. Roughly, a person's chances of doing jury service during their lifetime are one in six.
Whilst the Lord Chancellor is ultimately responsible for summoning jurors, the day to day work is carried out by the Jury Central Summoning Bureau (JCSB) which administers jury summonses usually on behalf of the Crown Court in England and Wales. During the year from April 2002 to March 2003 the JCSB summoned approximately 480,000 potential jurors. Twenty-five percent of those summoned were excused at the discretion of the Bureau. Of the remainder, 44% either served on the date summoned or had their service deferred to a more convenient date whilst 14% either did not receive their summons or did not respond to it. The remaining 17% were either disqualified or exercised their right to be excused.
Under the 1974 Act there are no restrictions on the places at which a person may be required to serve as a juror. However, the Act also provides that the Lord Chancellor, when discharging his duty to summon jurors, shall have regard to the desirability of selecting jurors within reasonable travelling distance of the court at which they are to serve. In practice, jurors are rarely summoned to a court where they are required to travel for more than 1½ hours.
The JCSB is in constant contact with each court centre in order to get an indication of how many jurors will be needed. A person summoned will be given at least four weeks' notice, although the JCSB will usually try to give eight weeks so that jurors can make any necessary arrangements.
Should a person (currently not ineligible or excused as of right) who is summoned for jury service believe that they should not sit as a juror, they must apply to the JCSB providing as much information as possible to demonstrate good reason as to why they should be excused or deferred (for example, childcare responsibilities). The JCSB will then consider this request and will make a decision as to whether they should use their discretionary power under sections 9 and 9A (to excuse or defer respectively) of the 1974 Act, taking into account the guidance issued to them by the Lord Chancellor.
Should a person summoned have their jury service deferred they will be offered an alternative date within one year of the original summons period. A reminder will be sent to the person within eight weeks of the new date they are due to attend. The JCSB will only excuse a person from jury service if they can show to the satisfaction of the summoning officer good reason why they should not serve at any time within the following twelve months. For example, because a person will be out of the country or because of religious objections. Due to the nature of random selection, people who have been excused may be called upon again to serve as jurors.
Should the JCSB decide not to allow a person to be either deferred or excused from jury service, the person refused may appeal against the decision. The appeal will be considered in the first instance by the Head of the JCSB and can often be resolved at this stage, for instance if the person provides more information relating to their request. Where the JCSB upholds the original decision, the matter can be referred to a judge at the court for a final decision. The judge additionally has the discretion to excuse or discharge a juror if he considers that the circumstances warrant it.
A person, not excused from jury service, commits an offence if he either fails to attend on a day covered by the summons, or, having attended, is then either not available when called on to serve or is unfit by reason of drink or drugs. This offence is punishable either on summary conviction (i.e. before a magistrate), or as if it were a criminal contempt committed in the face of the court. This means that the Crown Court judge may, and normally would, determine whether an offence has been committed, rather than causing a summary prosecution to be brought. The offence is punishable with a fine of up to £1,000.
Once at court, a court official will explain the role and function of a juror in more detail. Jurors are usually expected to sit for 10 working days. However, because of the nature of some cases the length of service may be longer, or shorter. The Judge will usually inform those summoned if this is likely to be the case before they are empanelled, and will ask if this will cause difficulties for people. The Judge will make every effort to meet the needs of each juror within reason. Further information as to what a juror can expect once at court can be found in the booklet You and Your Jury Service a copy of which is sent with the confirmation of service letter, attached at Annex C.
As we have seen, whilst approximately 480,000 people are summoned for jury service each year, many of these are currently either ineligible or excused as of right from undertaking jury service as a result of Schedule 1 of the 1974 Act. The provisions included in the Criminal Justice Act mean that many more will be eligible for service and the need for fairness and consistency in granting excusal or deferral is therefore highlighted.
These exemption and excusal categories had their origins in the recommendations of the Morris Committee in 1965. This, and the extent to which they have subsequently been amended, reveals a certain degree of historical accretion and accident. In respect of excusal as of right, which includes members of occupations considered to be of national importance, as the Morris Committee itself acknowledged, it is extremely difficult to draw a line between those whose work is and is not so crucial that a judgement can be made in advance of any knowledge of the individual circumstances involved - that it would be against the public interest to require them to serve as jurors.
The current structure is also unnecessarily complex. It encourages an overly compartmentalised, mechanistic approach at the expense of considering the merits of individual cases in the round. It excludes, or allows to be automatically excused from jury service, a wide range of people with a variety of skills and experience.
In his Review of the Criminal Courts (chapter 5, paragraph 11), Lord Justice Auld noted:
Despite all the reforms of the latter half of the last century, juries in England and Wales mostly still do not reflect the broad range of skills and experience or ethnic diversity of the communities from which they are drawn. Jury service may be an important incident of citizenship, but many in this country do not qualify for this civic privilege and duty. And many who do qualify, do not regard it as a privilege and do their best to avoid it. If the jury is to fulfil its valued role of giving the community a say in the administration of justice, it should reflect the community better than it does.
He continued (chapter 5, paragraph 14):
In my view, no-one should be automatically ineligible or excusable from jury service simply because he or she is a member of a certain profession or holds a particular office or job. Where the demands of the office or job are such as to make jury service difficult for him over the period covered by the jury summons, he should be subject to the same regime as the self-employed or ordinary wage earners or others for whom jury service is also costly and burdensome, that is, discretionary excusal or deferral.
The Government responded to Lord Justice Auld's report in its White Paper, Justice for All, stating, "we believe that all members of the community have a responsibility and a duty to carry out jury service, making a contribution to the process of justice, if they possibly can. This will also increase the diversity of juries".
The Government has confirmed that it wishes to make juries more representative of the public at large by making provision in the Criminal Justice Act to abolish (except in the case of mentally disordered persons) the categories of ineligibility for, and excusal as of right from, jury service set out in Parts 1 and 3 of Schedule 1 to the 1974 Act (Annex D). If anyone affected by these changes does not wish to serve as a juror, he or she will in future be required to apply for excusal or deferral under section 9 or 9A of the 1974 Act, showing "good reason" why he or she should not serve as summoned.
Concerns have been raised about the possible effect on the fairness of the trial of allowing lawyers and others involved in the administration of justice to sit on juries. The fear is that they might exercise undue influence over their fellow jurors by virtue of their specialist knowledge of the justice system. However, the Government is satisfied that these concerns are unfounded. The American experience, where, in a number of states, judges, lawyers and others holding positions in the criminal justice system have sat as jurors for some time, is that their fellow jurors have not allowed them to dominate their deliberations. In England and Wales, a large number of people with extensive knowledge of the criminal justice system - legal academics, law students and civil servants working in criminal justice - currently do jury service. There is no evidence to suggest that the involvement of any of these groups in jury service has been a problem. More generally, the diluting effect of the process of random selection, and the group dynamic of the jury, serve to protect the integrity of the deliberative process.
There will, of course, undoubtedly be circumstances in which it will not be appropriate for someone involved in the administration of justice to serve on a jury. A person summoned for jury service who thinks it is very likely that they will know, or be known to, someone involved in the conduct of the trial (for example, a judge summoned to the court at which he sits) may apply for excusal from the JCSB on that account. At court, jurors are required to notify the court immediately if they know someone in the trial to which they are assigned, or if they have any other connection with the trial which might, or might appear, to threaten its fairness, were they to sit as a juror. This is the situation at present and will not change as a result of the provisions in the Criminal Justice Act.
The Criminal Justice Act also makes amendments to the category of those disqualified from jury service, as set out in Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the 1974 Act to reflect developments in sentencing legislation, although the broad principle underlying this category remains unchanged. As a consequence, all registered electors between 18 and 70 years old, who have been resident in the United Kingdom for five years unless they have a criminal record or mental illness, will now be eligible for jury service.
The Criminal Justice Act also places a statutory duty on the Lord Chancellor (in whom responsibility for jury summoning is vested), to issue guidelines as to the manner in which the functions of the appropriate officer (i.e. the Jury Central Summoning Bureau) are to be exercised. The purpose in doing this is to ensure clarity and transparency of the discretionary system. It is on these guidelines that this consultation paper seeks views.
We propose that the following guidance be issued to staff at the Jury Central Summoning Bureau for use when summoning jurors and when considering applications for deferral and excusal. We then propose that this guidance be placed on the Court Service website.
Guidance for summoning officers when considering deferral and excusal applications
Applications to be deferred [Endnote 1] or excused [Endnote 2] from jury service must be considered carefully, sympathetically and with regard to the individual circumstances of the applicant. It is important that officers dealing with such applications should adopt a policy that is both fair to the individual and consistent with the needs of the court, i.e. providing a representative jury. Officers should therefore not hesitate to refuse a request if no "good reason" is given.
If good reason is shown why the person should not sit on the date they have been summoned, deferral should always be considered in the first instance. Excusal from jury service should be reserved only for those cases where the jury summoning officer is satisfied that it would be unreasonable to require the person to serve at any time within the following twelve months.
When deferring jury service, the summoning officer must specify a new date of attendance, which should normally be within one year of the date of the summons. In deciding on the new date the times identified by the potential juror as being particularly inconvenient should be avoided wherever possible.
Summoning Officer's Discretion
The normal expectation is that everyone summoned for jury service will serve at the time for which they are summoned. It is recognised that there will be occasions where it is not reasonable for a person summoned to serve at the time for which they are summoned, in such circumstances, the summoning officer should use his/ her discretion to defer the individual to a time more appropriate. Only in extreme circumstances, should a person be excused from jury service.
The summoning officer in exercising his or her discretion should observe the following principles:
Section 8 (1) of the Juries Act 1974 provides that a person summoned who shows to the satisfaction of the appropriate officer that they have already served, or duly attended to serve, within the prescribed period (which is two years), shall be excused from service. When a person claims to have served within the prescribed period their statement should normally be accepted, subject to subsequent checking against records where this can easily be done.
An application for excusal on the grounds of insufficient understanding of English should normally be granted. If in doubt, the juror may be brought before the judge as prescribed by section 10 of the 1974 Act.
When considering applications for excusal on the grounds of care responsibilities deferral should be considered in the first instance. Paragraph 4 applies.
Applications for excusal from members of enclosed religious orders, and from practising members of religious societies and orders, the tenets or beliefs of which are incompatible with jury service, should be granted. If evidence for either situation is not provided, it should be requested. Where jury service conflicts with an applicant's religious festival they should be deferred.
Those applying for excusal because the court to which they have been summoned is difficult for them to reach should be offered an alternative court to attend.
Deferral, rather than excusal, should be granted for holidays. Paragraph 4 applies.
Jurors may be excused for valid business reasons. Applications of this type should, however, be looked at closely and granted only if there would be unusual hardship. A small business is an example of a case where such hardship might be suffered, although each case will be considered on its individual merits. Paragraph 4 applies.
Applications for excusal by shift workers and night workers should be dealt with sympathetically. A shift worker should be deferred to a period where they do not have to attend on a rest day.
Cases of hardship may occasionally arise where a student, who depends on obtaining employment during the vacation in order to meet financial or vocational commitments, is summoned for jury service before taking up such employment and is subsequently refused payment for loss of earnings, because no actual loss of earnings has occurred. Where an application for excusal or deferral is made by a student on these grounds it should be treated sympathetically, otherwise genuine financial hardship may be caused.
Applications for excusal from teachers or students during term time, and particularly during exam periods, should be deferred in the first instance. Paragraph 4 applies.
Those who apply for excusal on grounds that jury service would conflict with important public duties should normally be deferred. Paragraph 4 applies.
Members of Parliament who seek excusal of jury service on the grounds of parliamentary duties should be offered deferral in the first instance. If an MP feels that it would be inappropriate to do jury service in his/her constituency, they should be allowed to do it elsewhere. Paragraph 4 applies.
The Speaker of the House of Commons and his deputies, because of the difficulties their absence from the House would cause, should in the first instance be deferred to a time when parliament is not sitting. Paragraph 4 applies.
Members of the judiciary or those involved in the administration of justice who apply for excusal or deferral on grounds that they may be known to a party or parties involved in the trial should normally be deferred or moved to an alternative court. If this is not possible, then they should be excused. Paragraph 4 applies.
Full-time serving members of the Armed Forces will be deferred or excused jury service in cases where their commanding officer certifies that their absence would be prejudicial to the efficiency of the Service in question (see Schedule 33 (paragraph 10) of the Criminal Justice Act).
Applications for excusal on the grounds that jury service will conflict with work commitments should be deferred in the first instance unless excusal is clearly necessary. Each case will of course need to be considered on its own merits. Applications for excusal or deferral cannot be accepted from third parties, e.g. employers. Paragraph 4 applies.
Applications for excusal on the grounds of a physical disability which would make jury service difficult to undertake should be considered sympathetically - such applications should normally be considered without the necessity for a medical certificate to be produced. If a summoning officer requires a medical certificate to support an application for excusal on the grounds of illness or physical disability (for example, where there is uncertainty as to the illness/disability), or one is required for an appeal against non-excusal, the cost of providing it should be reimbursed. General practitioners are entitled to charge for providing such certificates and there is not a fixed charge.
Question 1
Does the proposed guidance adequately balance the needs of those summoned
with the need to have sufficient numbers of jurors available?
Unemployed people who have been claiming Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) and are summoned for jury service cannot at present continue claiming JSA. Instead, those who have been claiming income-based JSA must claim Income Support for the duration of their jury service, while those who have been claiming contribution-based JSA must claim reimbursement for loss of benefit from the Court Service. At the end of their jury service, both types of claimant must then make a new claim for JSA.
Switching between different forms of financial support in this way is time-consuming at best and at worst may lead to a delay in payment and possibly financial hardship through no fault of the individual. It is also both administratively complex and resource-intensive for Jobcentre Plus and Court Service staff. The Government therefore proposes to amend the Jobseeker's Allowance Regulations 1996 to enable claimants to continue claiming JSA while serving as jurors for up to eight weeks.
The Government would welcome responses to the following questions set out in this consultation paper:
Does the proposed guidance adequately balance the needs of those summoned with the need to have sufficient numbers of jurors available?
The Government would also welcome comments as to whether the period within which it is possible to claim excusal by reason of previous jury service should remain at two years (paragraph 7)? If not, what should it be? Please give reasons for your answer.
Any other comments.
Name:
Organisation:
Address:
If you are responding on behalf of a group or organisation please give a summary of the people and organisations you represent.
Please send your completed response to:
Mark Cooper
Department for Constitutional Affairs
Criminal Justice Delivery Unit
4th Floor
Selborne House
54-60 Victoria Street
London SW1E 6QW
Tel: 020 7210 1488
Fax: 020 7210 8725
Email: mark cooper
If you have any complaints or comments about the consultation process, you should contact the Department for Constitutional Affairs' consultation co-ordinator, Laurence Fiddler, on 020 7210 2622 or email him at: Laurence Fiddler.
Alternatively, you may wish to write to the address below:
Laurence Fiddler
Consultation Co-ordinator,
5th Floor Open Plan
Lord Chancellor's Department
Selborne House
54-60 Victoria Street
London SW1E 6QW
The criteria in the Code of Practice on Written Consultation issued by the Cabinet Office is as follows:
Timing of consultation should be built into the planning process for a policy or service from the start, so that it has the best prospect of improving the proposals concerned, and so that sufficient time is left for it at each stage.
It should be clear who is being consulted, about what questions, in what timescale and for what purpose.
A consultation document should be as simple and concise as possible. It should include a summary, in two pages at most, of the main questions it seeks views on. It should make it as easy as possible for readers to respond, make contact or complain.
Documents should be made widely available, with the fullest use of electronic means (though not to the exclusion of others), and effectively drawn to the attention of all interested groups and individuals.
Sufficient time should be allowed for considered responses from all groups with an interest. Twelve weeks should be the standard minimum period for a consultation.
Responses should be carefully and open-mindedly analysed, and the results made widely available, with an account of the views expressed, and reasons for decisions finally taken.
Departments should monitor and evaluate consultations, designating a consultation co-ordinator who will ensure the lessons are disseminated.
Home
Office Regulatory Impact Assessment 
Schedule 1 of the Juries Act 1974
Schedule 33 of the Criminal Justice Act
Copies of this consultation paper have been sent to the following (the list is not prescriptive - comments are welcome from any group or individual with a view on the subject):
Judicial
The Right Honourable Lord Woolf of Barnes - The Lord Chief Justice of England
and Wales
The Right Honourable Sir Igor Judge - The Deputy Chief Justice
The Right Honourable Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers - The Master of the
Rolls
The Right Honourable Lord Justice Thomas - Senior Presiding Judge
The Right Honourable Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss - The President of the
Family Division
The Right Honourable Sir Robert Andrew Morritt CVO - The Vice-Chancellor
The Right Honourable Lord Bingham of Cornhill TD - Senior Law Lord
The Right Honourable Lord Justice Auld
Association of District Judges
Council of Her Majesty's Circuit Judges
Judges' Council
The Legal Professions
Administrative Law Bar Association
Association of Justices Chief Executives
Association of Personal Injury Lawyers
Association of Women Barristers
Association of Women Solicitors
The Bar Council
Chancery Bar Association
Commercial Bar Association
Criminal Bar Association
Criminal Law Solicitors' Association
Family Law Bar Association
Institute of Barristers' Clerks
Institute of Legal Executives
Justices' Clerks' Society
The Law Society
Legal Aid Practitioners' Group
The Magistrates' Association
Society for Black Lawyers
Society of Asian Lawyers
Solicitors' Association of Higher Court Advocates
Solicitors' Family Law Association
Young Barristers' Committee
Young Solicitors' Group
Government Departments and Agencies directly affected by the changes
Coroners Office
Court Service Circuit Administrators
Director of Public Prosecutions Crown Prosecution Service
Environment Agency
Health & Safety Executive
HM Customs & Excise
Inland Revenue
Judicial Studies Board
Serious Fraud Office
Small Business Service
Treasury Solicitor's Department
Police, Prison, Probation, and other Interested Groups
Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland
British Transport Police
Forensic Science Service
National Probation Service
Parole Board
Police Federation
Police Superintendents' Association of England and Wales
Prison Service
Other Interested Individuals, Groups or Organisations
The Right Honourable Michael Martin MP - Speaker, House of Commons
The Right Honourable Peter Hain MP - Leader of the House of Commons
The Right Honourable Baroness Amos - Leader of the House of Lords
The Right Honourable Lord Archer of Sandwell QC
Don Touhig MP
Lord Brennan
Active Elder Brethren of the Corporation of Trinity House of Deptford Strond
British Medical Association
Commission for Racial Equality
Criminal Cases Review Commission
Disability Rights Commission
Equal Opportunities Commission
Peter Cuckson - Hallamshire Education Trust
National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux
National Council for Voluntary Organisations
Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons
RSPCA (Inspectors)
Victim Support
A copy of the consultation paper has also gone to a number of religious organisations.
Deferral of jury service is covered by section 9A of the Juries Act 1974, which provides that the summoning officer may defer the date on which a juror has to attend for jury service. Whether deferral is allowed or denied the summoning officer may only exercise the power once in relation to a particular summons.
Section 9(2) of the Juries Act 1974 provides that if any person who has been summoned to attend as a juror shows to the satisfaction of the summoning officer that there is good cause why they should be excused from attending, the summoning officer may grant excusal.