Thread: Jury Duty

No trail by jury in Thailand. Misdemeanors a single judge. More serious crimes two or more.

That's interesting Norton. So basically it is much easier to purchase an outcome in Thailand.

I have always loved the following story where basically the Jury knew he was guilty but because what he did was such a grand achievement the found him not guilty!


"The Roma Court House has undoubtedly been the scene of many interesting trials and judgements but few can quite match the trial of Harry Redford.

The history of Harry Redford is a tale of daring, chicanery and the outback's admiration for a criminal bushman which the novelist Rolf Boldrewood used as the basis of his famous novel Robbery Under Arms.

Redford was born in the Hawkesbury River district of New South Wales in 1842. It is likely that his father was the convict, Thomas Redford, who had arrived in Australia in 1826. By the time he was a teenager Redford was working as a drover and by 1870 he was in Central Western Queensland working on the vast Bowen Downs station which, at the time, covered 1.75 million acres. The area upon which modern day Muttaburra stands was at one end of this vast holding.

At the time Bowen Downs was running a herd of about 70 000 cattle and Redford felt that the station owners wouldn't even know if they were a thousand short on muster. Redford knew that if he stole the cattle (all of which had been branded) that he couldn't sell them in Queensland or New South Wales. So he devised a plan to drove the cattle down the Cooper Creek into South Australia. To understand how daring this plan was it is worth remembering that Burke and Wills had died attempting to make a similar journey only nine years earlier.

Amazingly Redford was successful. He drove the cattle 1300 km to the Blanche Water station in northern South Australia where he sold them for £5000. However the loss was noted and in February 1871 Redford was arrested and brought to Roma to be tried. The charge was 'that Redford, in March 1870, at Bowen Downs station, feloniously did steal 100 bullocks, 100 cows, 100 heifers, 100 steers, one white bull, the property of Morehead and Young.'

From the outset the trial had the elements of an entertainment rather than a serious investigation. Locals, captivated by Redford's consummate bushcraft and daring, packed the courtroom. The white bull stood in a yard outside the courthouse. Forty-one of the forty-eight people called as possible jurors were dismissed because they were prejudiced. The white bull took part in a line up with twenty other bulls and was immediately identified by his owner.

The evidence against Redford was overwhelming. The defence offered no witnesses and complained that Redford had been gaoled without trial.

The jury retired for an hour and then delivered their verdict. The court transcript reads as follows:

Judge: What is your verdict?
Foreman of the Jury: We find the prisoner 'Not Guilty'.
Judge: What?
Foreman of the Jury: Not guilty.
Judge: I thank God, gentlemen, that the verdict is yours, not mine!"

Why did that deserve a red Dr Bob?

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Originally Posted by MeMock

What has your experiences been with doing Jury Duty?

Do you always get challenged and never actually get to serve or are you one of those people that always gets picked?

If you were picked, how long did the case go for? Was it 1st degree murder or just common assault?

Have you ever been the one who disagrees with the other 11 jurors?

What happens in Thailand? Is it corrupt like everything else? Has your better half ever served?

I have only once been called to Jury duty where I was promptly challenged and dismissed.

The other two times the clerk of courts has taken one look at me and said "you are far to busy to serve" and let me go back to work. (I knew her)

Picked once, terrorism trial. Jury split because while some jurors wanted to acquit based on their political views others wanted to reach a guilty verdict based on the fact that the defendant was guilty as hell. At that time verdicts had to be unanimous so a retrial was ordered in the Special Criminal Court (no jury, one Judge), what the British would call a Diplock court, where the defendant was banged up for life after a 30 minute trial.

There are no trials by jury in Thailand as far as I'm aware.

How long where you on duty for?

Do you get reimbursed in England?

Never even been called on jury duty. Not once. Having said that I left UK in my early 20's and have lived in Asia, since. Theoretically I could have been called in HK, but only if the case was to be tried in English, I believe.

Originally Posted by MeMock

That's interesting Norton.

Yep. Overall cost is much less though than the US system with extravagant lawyer fees and countless appeals!

I dont know, they wont use ex-cons as jury members...

Originally Posted by MeMock

What has your experiences been with doing Jury Duty?

When the prosecutor asks you a question, say, "excuse me?"

He repeats the question.

You say, "pardon."

He'll ask, "do you have a hearing problem?"

You say, "Oh, slightly."


You'll never be called.

Only called once, I told them that the prick was guilty and should just hang him, I was sent home, but I never lived in that country much and I am just a kid anyway.

Originally Posted by MeMock

What has your experiences been with doing Jury Duty?

I'm exempt.

Have been living permanently outside uk for 25+ years but my name apparently is still on the electorial register in Wolverhampton.
A year or so ago my ex wife had a letter for ne from the high court calling me for jury duty.
She dutifully returned it to the court stating that I no longer lived there.
Had a visit from a baliff type person asking for my present address.
She told them( I was living in Thailand then)
Phoned me and told me what was happening .
Lo and behold ! a week or so later I received a mail , addressed to me in Thailand, demanding that I present myself at the high court for selection within 3 days of the date of the letter !!
I laughed and ignored it .
The date was the week before!
A week later I received a bloody summons for ignoring a High Court order!! WTF !!
After several phone calls to the clerk of the court - and a good few laughs between us to sort it out
It transpired that they had a law student on work experience whos' task was notifying jurors.
Not being racist, but he was from India - and with a strict founding in law based on the old Raj and no lateral thinking- he was following the exact procedure in his text book

It must have cost the council a fortune !

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by MeMock

What has your experiences been with doing Jury Duty?

I'm exempt.

Cmon Ant, I was kinda hoping you would fill us in a little on some behind the scenes jury stuff!

Originally Posted by MeMock

behind the scenes jury stuff

Never really had the experience MeMock.

I do have what I consider a healthy suspicion of juries though. Basically there's really no such thing as a 'jury of your peers' in my opinion. There are so many people with exemptions (doctors, lawyers etc) that at the end of the day it's, as per usual, the blue-collar/working classes that are the ones who are burdened with performing the 'civic duty' of sitting on a jury.

Would you say that these blue collar workers tend to convict or dismiss more often then not?

i'm not sure it's that black and white memock.

Why not KW?

Lawyers spend a lot of time and money picking Juries based on historic proof on which way they vote.

Blue collar workers I would assume on average see things differently then white collar workers. Wouldn't you agree?

agreed, wot i mean is one cannot just say a blue collar worker jury is more likely to convict.

it depends on the make up of that jury, it depends on the type of crime, it depends on the defendant as well...

eg, they might be more likely to convict a white collar business man of a white collar crime,

but less likely to convict a woman of tax evasion

Yeah but if a lawyer had to chose between a bluey or a whitey then surely he would have an inkling due to previous research which way that particular person may vote. Black and white like you said. Not saying it will be true all the time but still a better chance.

I have read about all that Norton but have always wondered how true it is because all my info comes from John Grisham books

In the UK it is a breach of law to discus deliberations made in the jury room