Has anyone self employed ever done this?
I have a friend who has been called up and has told me that the most he will be offered in terms of financial support as a self employed person is about £65/day if he serves for up to 10 days and £130 per day thereafter.
The first 10 days isn't even the NMW.
This seems ridiculous, if true.
I disagree. It’s not as though we are short of people who can do it . No need to pay people much
Sounds about right
A former shop changed the employee contract when a senior salaried partner (who was basically on the cusp of retiring anyway) decided to fully commit when called on . Did a fraud trial on full pay 🤣
Weirdly enough the 'zzette, self-employed, was called up for this to happen in a couple of months. Appealed against it and just recently told her appeal was successful. Would have cost us a fvcking fortune.
Iceman he is on a £500 day rate as a contractor. He has been given less than a months notice of his call up date. It isn’t fair at all as most peoples employers absorb the pain financially but he has to do it individually. If he lands a complex fraud trial that lasts weeks and months it will cost him tens of thousands of pounds
He just needs to rock up on day one with a maga hat on.
when i did it there was a clear divide in "happiness" between those who basically got full pay because their employers were helpful vs those who were self employed / in tougher organisations.
the money is peanuts.
my only comment would be that there is a LOT of hanging around and the actual sitting times are quite short so you may well be able to juggle it
It's basic civic duty. Like paying taxes imo.
My view is that if you want the benefits of freelancing , you take the downsides too. The request for fairness is bogus in my view. I can see why people will take a different view while they have friends and relatives who have lost out
Pingu, I had to do it last year. I postponed it once to complete a deal. I was then asked to do it again 4 months later and was told another postponement would be very unlikely to be granted. I had to turn down a big project that would have coincided with my postponed jury service. As a self-employed contractor who relies on a few big projects a year to keep me going, that 2 week stint of jury service cost me roughly £30-40k of income. That stung a bit. It didn't help that the trial I sat through was a complete waste of time as the evidence against the accused was pathetically flimsy/obviously untrue and the CPS should never have approved it for prosecution.
Employed people are not necessarily better off than the self-employed; employers don't have to pay you for time spent doing jury service.
Basically the State views it like National Service - you have to do it if called. As your friend is a lawyer, a judge is unlikely to look terribly favourably at a lawyer trying to wriggle out of it. It sucks, the jury system is an Anglo-Saxon oddity that most of the other signatories to the ECHR do without, but the UK fetishises it so we are stuck with it, and your friend will probably have to suck it up and hope no interesting work comes along in the meantime.
Sorry, I assumed that "complex fraud trial" was the work he does. On re-reading, probably not.
If the trial is slated to last more than 2 weeks you can plead poverty and withdraw, whereupon you will be allocated a shorter trial. The fact that complex fraud trials can only be tried by juries comprising the reired and the unemployed may explain why so many of them collapse.
To be fair to the guy (who is in IT, not law) he is feeling a little fraught as he will lose a job now, at less than a month's notice, which will cost him and annoy a prospective customer he has just cultivated an "in" with. He is the sole earner so it worried about a long trial and the impact on his fledgling business, but useful to know that he can flag that.
He's also been a magistrate for just over a year and so does that once a month, at no charge (even though he can claim a similar amount to jury service) so he's already doing his civic duty in that sense.
Magistrates should be exempt.
Aren’t magistrates exempt?
I thought they might be, but apparently not according to him
It's awful. You opt to avoid trial in the magistrates and end up with a trial by 11 magistrates and a retired hanging judge.
You absolutely can apply to postpone, usually only once.
I was called (for the second time in my life) a couple of years ago in a period when I'd just been canned and was looking for work. I wrote a very nice polite letter telling them that this was interfering with job applications (it actually was in terms of start dates etc) and they just wrote back saying "chz, you're excused" - tell your mate to stop being such a fanny and at the least postpone and potentially get them to knock it on the head.
Also, what clubbers said, unless you need to be in actual attendance at meetings etc you can work round it. You're only in 10-4 with breaks for lunch, and even then there is often a lot of waiting around either between or even during trials if they are arguing points of law.
I got called but released. It was a shame, not many jury trials here
Tl dr what a fcvking travesty. The amount of public money spunked up the wall all over the place but we can’t pay professionals to give up their time to help. And anyone gaming it is a self evident c unt.
The 'zzette has an MA in criminology and criminal justice has always gone on about how she'd love to do jury service so things she studied academically in action. But not at the cost of several weeks earnings and potentially having her contract terminated if she's unable to do the work she's been engaged to do.
*to see things she studied
After I did it I got called again the following year - easy to get out of that.
Someone told me that if you move house into a different borough you are more likely to get called, something to do with just recently getting on the council list.
My client were so much more accepting of delays due to jury service than they ever have been of delays due to illnesses or holidays. Surprised me.
Tbf to LA he seems to spend 1/4 of his time actively working and on the balance of probabilities when his employer would pay his salary when on jury service, 1/4 of his time serving his notice period when again presumably his employer will pay his salary during his jury service and the rest of the time unemployed when he's just grateful for the £65 period week so I can understand his perspective on this.
He just needs to rock up on day one with a maga hat on.
Or a smart tailored dark suit, bowler hat and a copy of the Torygraph under one arm…..
My sister is on jury service next week. She still thinks you can change a light bulb with a screwdriver. There are going to be 11 very spooked jurors
Don’t touch that switch
You didn’t have to grow up with her.
I'm so out of date I didn't realise lawyers were no longer exempt.
I once, as a student, took part in a police line-up – walking past the cop-shop as a student, and was asked would I – they gave you a few quid for your pains. I asked him could I be jailed if the plaintiff mistakenly identified me, but the cop said no chance of that. Somewhat reassured, I gave it a go.
It was memorable for 2 reasons - a law student whom I vaguely knew – couple of years ahead of me in college – was on the case, and was startled to see me, and, charmingly, assumed I had been arrested for something.
Then, the perp that he was defending showed up, and he stood out a mile, all big white trainers, athleisure, hair brushed forward, etc. So the solicitor made the rest of us in the line-up remove our shoes (as did his client) so that there’d be no footwear bias. Then he got someone to give the scrote a side-parting, kitted him out in law-abiding trousers, and a waxed Barbour jacket, and – even though I thought this was close to taking the p – jammed a rolled-up copy of the FT under his arm, and admonished him to stop grinning.
So when the poor victim came in to do the ID parade, after all the aforementioned social camouflaging, she hadn’t the faintest idea, and the shifty chav lived to stab another day.
"Iceman he is on a £500 day rate as a contractor. He has been given less than a months notice of his call up date. It isn’t fair at all as most peoples employers absorb the pain financially but he has to do it individually. If he lands a complex fraud trial that lasts weeks and months it will cost him tens of thousands of pounds "
As contractor you typically get paid far more than as a salaried employee doing the same job. The quid pro quo is loss of security and benefits. A sensible contractor would use some that additional money to insure against loss of income in the event of illness and unavoidable events such as jury service.
He wouldn’t/ shouldn’t have been allowed to carry an FT or anything at all at an ID parade so I suspect this is an embellishment.
Another cocking embarrassment from Guy.
what is embarrassing about suggesting contractors should either insure or set money aside to cover days when they are unable to work?
What a joke.
Good luck with finding an insurer that will cover anything like the likely losses. Most seem to max out at £500 per day and max 10 days. They also don't insure against the long term damage to the business beyond the period of jury service.
This guy earns £500 a day Buzz.
Which is fine if like him you don't earn more than that, don't end up on a month long fraud trial and will still have a business to go back to once it's finished.
The 10 day limit is there because that is the usual jury service period. If you are being considered for a trial likely to last longer I believe loss of livelihood is something that can be taken into consideration for being excused. In fact when I last did jury service people were asked to volunteer for the long trials.
"can be taken into consideration". I suppose you could apply for JR if they refuse....
Buzz have you done jury service recently? I have, in reality it is not an issue, they are not going to make you sit in a trial for a month and lose your livelihood.
they are very strict about doing the 10 days which is why you can insure against this, but far more latitude given about the longer trials. There are plenty of people in any given cohort who are happy to do the longer stuff.
Most of the policies I've looked at only cover 10 days.
You can't insure against the losses which you might suffer after the jury period as a result of having done it.
While the employed don't always get paid by their employer for doing jury service, they have statutory protection as regards their continued employment after it ends.
Not all contractors are contractors because they want the usually higher pay. Some would rather be employed but it's the counterparty who requires them to be contractors.
Can't see how just get insurance or put money aside is an answer which fits all sizes.
problem is that if all the people who have to work properly for a living it's left to those who don't. and they're a bunch of sandal wearing tofu eating nhs managers and school teachers etc
no clubbers, also employees who will continue to get paid but find sitting on a long jury trial more interesting than working.
Buzz, I have explained that you dont have to do more than ten days if you dont want to. If those ten days are going to fook over your business and cause long term problems that is a valid reason to apply to be excused all together.
No Guy you haven't explained that and you can't because it isn't true. No one has the right to limit their jury service to 10 days. Sure they will ask and will probably not ask you to do if it will cause problems but that isn't the same as having the right not to do it if it exceeds 10 days.
"that is a valid reason to apply to be excused all together". Oh it's a valid reason to apply sure. It's not a right to be excused if you do apply on those grounds though. It's quite notable that having your business totally fvcked as a result is not one of the "exceptional circumstances" listed on the guidance.
I wonder if Rupert Lowe is agreeable to adding a box to every government related form ‘I work for myself - fvck off out of this’? He’ll get my vote if so.
Direct from the relevant guidance
"Potential 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 if not excused. A small business where such hardship might be suffered"
Buzz, the reality is that this is dealt with in a pragmatic way and nobody is gets completely screwed. This is preferable to changing the formal rules such that the self employed can just skip jury service.
Lawyers should be exempt anyway. Who needs to sit thru a week of journeymen crim lawyers boring the bejesus of everyone ffs.
That's the internal guidance for summoning officer, the public guidance makes no mention of it but fair enough.
"each case must be considered on its individual merits". Fine but what criteria are applied in judging a case on its merits? "Para 4 applies" it says and para 4 refers to "Only in exceptional circumstances should a person be excused from jury service in relation to that summons". What constitutes "exceptional circumstances"? What is "unusual hardship" where it relates not to the immediate loss of income but the knock-on effects? Bit more clarity on this might be appreciated.
Join the discussion