The Council Circuit of Judges - which represents over 600 judges in England and Wales - has indicated that allowing those over 70 to serve as jurors would risk serious disruption to criminal trials.

The comments, made in a report by the council's subcommittee, have come in response to a Ministry of Justice proposal that the maximum age of 70 for jurors be lifted. This was intended to reduce the number of loss-of-earnings payments shelled out and to make juries more inclusive. 

According to the council, however, old people - what with their illnesses and their inability to move quickly - would actually end up costing more. It is acknowledged that medical advances now mean that people are still able to function over the age of 70. But only just, apparently. The report sets out the litany of issues affecting the elderly: "Problems with mobility, hearing and eyesight, together with difficulties in travel, all increase with age. Many would feel concerned about the effects of these problems if jury service was required."

A septuagenarian being disruptive yesterday

 

No thought seems to have been given to the fact that those with medical problems might be exempted from juror duty, as with younger jurors. Tellingly what is mentioned by the Council is a concern that judges - whose retirement age is 70 - may risk being called as jurors after their retirement. Could it be that for newly retired judges the thought of being dragged away from tending their rose gardens and back into court is behind such vociferous opposition to the proposal?