Jurys in Civil Cases - Award of Damages

Mark63

I was on a jury not too long ago in a civil case. Without going into the details of the case a couple of things came up that surprised me.

Before saying anything else I have to say that jury service gave me a much better understanding of the legal system and restored some of my faith in the legal system after reading about overpaid barristers and the like.

The jury selection process was intersesting in itself and I got called on the
2nd day. The case took a few days. I always thought that it was a bit of a joke that courts sat from 10.30 only until 4pm but really when you are trying to pay attenion to all the evidence in full your mind does tend to sag a bit after 2 hour blocks so I can see why this is done now.

The case went on and I noticed that some of the witnesses spent hours and days there even if they were just giving 10 mins worth of evidence - seemed to me there should be a better way not to take up so much time.

My real point is about the jury. This was a civil case and so was maybe 'easier' than a criminal case. What struck me was that with the jury there was a huge difference in the contributions by the different jurors - with 4 of us very involved in deliberating and another 2 or 3 making one or 2 points while the other 5 literally said nothing and only contributed to the group on breaks etc. I know that in any group of people there i sgoing to be different personality traits but it just surprised me that people wouldn't get involved even when the foreman would go around the table.

What surprised most that in the case there was the issue of damages to be resolved. So you get 12 people in a room and they have absolutely no idea what the scope of what they can award can be. The judge specifically pointed this out that they were unable to offer guidance with this. So once the issue had been agreed in favour of the person bringing the case was decided we got to discussing damages.

The fact of the matter is that without guidance we had to come up with a figure and nobody knew how to do this. We came up with a framework to do this but it still bothers me that we had no guidance on this. Essentially we agreed a framework and each gave an ammount and divided it by 12.

I can only guess how much in legal fees was paid in relation to the case and it being an important issue in relation to freedom of the press but the way that libel awards are decided surprised me.

Would be interested to know why it is taht a jury cannot be guided in relation to awards as in that case and if people think that this contributes to the fact that libel awards can seem very high?

johnnyskeleton

Mark63 wrote: »

The jury selection process was intersesting in itself and I got called on the 2nd day. The case took a few days. I always thought that it was a bit of a joke that courts sat from 10.30 only until 4pm but really when you are trying to pay attenion to all the evidence in full your mind does tend to sag a bit after 2 hour blocks so I can see why this is done now.

Many courts sit at 10.00 and finish at 7/8 o'clock -e.g. minor civil matters or district court criminal cases. But the high court usually sits between 11.00 and 1.00PM and then 2.00PM to 4.00/4.30PM.

Mark63 wrote:

Would be interested to know why it is taht a jury cannot be guided in relation to awards as in that case and if people think that this contributes to the fact that libel awards can seem very high?

They probably should be given some guidance, but at the same time, if they were given too much guidance there would be no point in having jurys in civil cases at all.

Juries are usually asked how much it would take to compensate the person on the basis that juries generally know the price of a pint etc and can give a more realistic award than judges who may get stuck in their ways. In defamation cases, who is to say what the value of damage to reputation is? 12 honest citizens can usually give a better value than one judge.

Victor

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Many courts sit at 10.00 and finish at 7/8 o'clock -e.g. minor civil matters or district court criminal cases. But the high court usually sits between 11.00 and 1.00PM and then 2.00PM to 4.00/4.30PM.

Of course, just because those are the sitting times doesn't mean the judges and lawyers only work those hours. There are other cases to be dealt with.

Juries are usually asked how much it would take to compensate the person on the basis that juries generally know the price of a pint etc and can give a more realistic award than judges who may get stuck in their ways. In defamation cases, who is to say what the value of damage to reputation is? 12 honest citizens can usually give a better value than one judge.

Would a jury be able to ask a qustion like "How much does / should the defamed person earn per year?", if for example, the defamation left them without work for X years? Or is that a point for the two sides to argue?

johnnyskeleton

Victor wrote: »

Of course, just because those are the sitting times doesn't mean the judges and lawyers only work those hours. There are other cases to be dealt with.

There is no doubt a mountain of paperwork crying out to be shifted.

Victor wrote:

Would a jury be able to ask a qustion like "How much does / should the defamed person earn per year?", if for example, the defamation left them without work for X years? Or is that a point for the two sides to argue?

I don't think juries are allowed to ask questions to elicit evidence. I think they can only ask the judge to clarify the law or to re-read the transcript etc.

But it would be remiss of a legal advisor for a defamation plaintiff not to lead that evidence (in most cirucmstances).