Every week Joan Bakewell and panellists wrestle with real-life medical and clinical issues on Radio 4’s Inside the Ethics Committee. Yet Bakewell is for ever banned from serving as a juror in a court case.
Neither can Michael Buerk be called by the Jury Central Summoning Bureau, nor David Starkey, nor Roger Scruton (although Melanie Phillips slips in). Some of the finest intellects in the country are called to debate on the Moral Maze, yet many would not be allowed to sit in a jury box.
Why? Because they are all 70 years of age or older. Jury service in England and Wales is limited to those between 18 and 70. It’s an astonishingly ageist rule, and all the more extraordinary in an era of huge improvements in longevity.
Are the over-70s too dozy? Will the likes of Michael Buerk nod off during a trial? Are the issues in court cases too complex for minds such as Bakewell’s? Our courts seem to think so.
Oddly, there is a widespread belief that juries are disproportionately made up of the elderly who have time on their hands (and a propensity to hang and flog). But that was always nonsense; until the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the upper limit for jury service was only 65.
Three years ago the Ministry of Justice proposed that the age limit be raised to 75, but it has hardly been a serious priority. The latest is that new legislation will be brought forward within the next year, although there is no guarantee.
Yet why even have an upper age limit? The new one will mean Buerk (70) is in, but Bakewell (83) remains firmly out. Judi Dench (81) will be deemed not fit for service, but Helen Mirren (71) will be.
As Age UK said when the new age limit was proposed: “Judging someone on the basis of their date of birth alone risks overlooking a person’s unique skills and knowledge. While it’s true that increasing longevity brings its challenges, there is also extraordinary human capital within our older population – older people are working, volunteering and contributing a huge amount to communities and the wider marketplace.”
When the Council of HM Circuit Judges examined the issue in 2010 they concluded that the upper age limit for jurors should remain at 70. They acknowledged that improvements in lifestyle and medicine have resulted in many older people enjoying a longer and more active life than their forebears. But they added that older jurors may be “more susceptible to illness and disability than those who are younger” and that “proceedings might be hampered by poor hearing, poor vision or physical disability”.
Yet over the border in Scotland there is no upper age limit; neither is there one in Australia or Ireland. What all those countries do is give older people a right of excusal. In England and Wales we have clamped down harshly on those who try to avoid jury service, yet ignore the huge depth of experience among the over-70s. A simple reform would be to remove the upper age limit on the over-70s, but to give those summoned an automatic right not to attend.
After all if we don’t allow the over-70s in, we won’t be reflecting society. One of the ringleaders behind the Hatton Garden heist, Brian Reader, was in his mid-70s at the time and headed a Dad’s Army group of robbers in their 60s and 70s. Given our ageist jury selection rules, it can hardly be said they were tried by a jury of their peers.
p.collinson@theguardian.com
