A MAN has been fined £400 after “refusing to perform the duties required of a juror” - including appearing to be sleeping through part of proceedings.
Ian Higgins was sentenced at the High Court in Glasgow on Monday after he accepted his actions amounted to contempt of court during a case, which included a rape charge, heard in September 2023.
Higgins told court staff “I have zero interest in this” and that he would “just sit there like a statue” rather than perform his duty as a juror.
In a sentencing statement, Judge Young said that Higgins was fined for contempt based on “interference with the administration of the law”.
Young detailed how Higgins “expressed displeasure” at being cited for jury duty in a telephone conversation the day before he was called to court, but that this was not regarded as contempt.
It was Higgins’s actions during the first day of the trial after he had been chosen as a juror.
When the group of jurors were asked if there were any issues that needed to be raised, the Judge explained: “You raised your hand and said that you did. You stated in front of the other jurors and substitutes that you had zero interest in this case or any case.
“You stated ‘you will not get my attention at no point’. You stated that you did not want to be there and ‘you had better let someone know’.
“The macer stated that he would relay that to the clerk. You replied ‘yes, you do that’.”
Higgins’s tone was described by the macer, a court official, as “abrupt and somewhat aggressive”.
He also spoke to a clerk and stated that he had “zero interest”, but was told that was not a “reason for justified excusal”.
After the case was called, Higgins “appeared to be sleeping” while the indictment was being read to the jury.
“I noticed that you were sitting with your eyes closed,” the Judge said.
“On one occasion, I asked if all jurors were paying attention.
“You looked up at me at that point, then looked to the side with a slight shrug of your shoulders. When the clerk started reading again, you shut your eyes again.
“At later stages you opened your eyes from time to time, but kept your gaze downward.”
The accused in the case’s legal team also noticed Higgins’s actions, and asked for him to be replaced by a substitute during an adjournment.
And, when the macer went to check on the jury during the pause in proceedings, Higgins reportedly said: “You won’t get any attention from me.”
“Your statement to the macer 'you will not get my attention at no point' is a clear indication that you were not willing to pay attention to the evidence during the trial, or otherwise engage with the trial,” Young said during sentencing.
"This amounts to a stated refusal to carry out the duties of a juror.
The judge explained that a juror is required to participate in the trial process, adding: “A juror who sits like a statue and does not give his attention is not carrying out the duties of a juror.
“He is therefore thwarting the administration of justice.
“His actions are deliberately directed at, and threaten to interfere with the authority of the court and the administration of justice.”
“Your intention, as you accept, was to avoid jury duty, and you were successful in this,” the judge added.
Higgins was replaced by a substitute juror, leading to “relatively little delay” to the progress of the trial, which lasted a week.
“The facts set out above comprise a deliberate and public attempt to evade your civic responsibility,” Young said.
The judge added: “Behaviour of this sort has a wider potential implication than the effect on that single trial.
“If other people selected for jury service were to act this way in order to avoid jury duty, then the system would be undermined.
Higgins later argued that other factors, including a relationship breakdown, suffering low mood and the nature of the charges triggered memories of events in his personal life, caused him to have an “emotional response”.
The judge set out the impact of Higgins’s actions, but reduced the fine amount due as his explanation provided “significant mitigation” of his behaviour.
“Overall, I consider that an appropriate fine is £400,” he said.
“As stated, this is considerably less than would have been appropriate without the mitigation which has been provided.”
