Friends will be familiar with the 1670 trial of William Penn and William Meade, which resulted in the right of jurors to deliver a verdict based on justice and individual liberty. The actions of Edward Bushell and his fellow jurors have always struck me as heroic and serve as a reminder of the importance of carrying out this civic duty.

Opening a letter from Her Majesty’s Court Service, I was therefore surprised and rather excited to find I had been summoned for jury service and I completed and returned the enclosed declaration. Imagine then my disappointment to be told that I was ineligible for jury service, that in effect I lacked the capacity for decision-making; there was no right of appeal.
I am in employment and a taxpayer but am not eligible for jury service because I regularly visit a medical practitioner for treatment for a mental illness. A little research revealed that even convicted criminals who have been imprisoned could after ten years of freedom be considered for jury service. Anyone in my position will not. By this measure Jeffrey Archer may one day be considered for jury service but Stephen Fry would not.

This ban arises from an archaic section in the Juries Act 1974. A section on ‘mentally disordered persons’ bars from jury service anyone ‘who suffers or has suffered from mental illness, psychopathic disorder, mental handicap or severe mental handicap, and on account of that condition either is resident in a hospital or other similar institution, or regularly attends for treatment by a medical practitioner’.

The national mental health charity ‘Rethink’ wants that replaced with a new definition of ‘capacity’, based on the 2005 Mental Capacity Act, which would allow many of those currently banned to serve, while excluding those who are genuinely unfit. Each individual juror’s declaration could be supplemented with evidence from a carer or health or social care professional.

This idea is supported by the Criminal Bar Association, whose chair Paul Mendelle says: ‘Trial by jury is a vital component of our criminal justice system and in order to work at its best, juries should represent a cross-section of society. Figures suggest that one in four people will be affected by mental health problems, so it seems inappropriate to impose a blanket ban that prevents anyone with a history of mental illness from sitting on a jury without assessment of their capacity.’ I would urge Friends to ask would-be MPs what their stance is on this question and to draw their attention to the ‘Rethink’ campaign.

The answer to a Parliamentary Question (tabled 14 May 2008) indicated that 750 people a month are being disqualified from jury service on mental health grounds.
Terry Wisker

Comments

• Posted by Sarah Colloby on April 23, 2010

  I was shocked to learn of this, Terry, thank you so much for raising this issue and for your courage in sharing your personal story.  The stigma attached to mental illness means that discrimination is often either not noticed or just accepted as the way of things - if other groups of people were directly or indirectly excluded in the same way there would be an outcry.  If readers would like to find out more about the campaign to end mental health discrimination, please visit http://www.time-to-change.org.uk/

• Posted by jgharston on April 26, 2010

  A driver who has epilepsy can continue to drive as receiving medical treatment is proof of continued competence, but a juror receiving medical treatment for mental illness is proof is non-competence! Ridiculous. With any medical condition - diabetes, epilepsy, mental illness, short-sightedness - adherence to a continued regieme of appropriate treatement is proof that it is not a problem, not proof that is is a problem.