The guy was an idiot:
Why claim something medical that you can't actually back up?
I'd assume (and at least hope) that anyone with conflicting or unconventional views would be dismissed - I mean if we still had the death penalty for example then a sincere belief (whether religious or otherwise) that it was wrong and a statement that you could never participate in potentially sending someone to their death ought to be sufficient.
Likewise there are people who are opposed philosophically to prison in general or with very limited exceptions - can they be trusted to act impartially when a custodial sentence is likely given a guilty verdict? Some people hate the police, some people love the police and hate criminals some people have extreme political views...
There must be any number of beliefs that could be expressed that would render someone wholly unsuitable for service as a juror - surely if someone either declares a sincerely held belief in advance or (if it is rejected) makes sure to turn up as required and makes that belief know then they've not done anything wrong.
I mean to take an extreme example - say someone is called to a grooming gang trial.... they then declare they're a fan of Tommy Robinson and have liked various dubious social media pages and are super excited to make sure the islamo-paedos get sent down etc... I'd suspect they'd be sent home and not invited back.
He is understood to have told officials that he was incapable of sitting down for long periods and that he was unable to concentrate. However, when he was told that he would need to provide a valid medical certificate, Grimes said that he was generally unfit and would not attend.
Why claim something medical that you can't actually back up?
I'd assume (and at least hope) that anyone with conflicting or unconventional views would be dismissed - I mean if we still had the death penalty for example then a sincere belief (whether religious or otherwise) that it was wrong and a statement that you could never participate in potentially sending someone to their death ought to be sufficient.
Likewise there are people who are opposed philosophically to prison in general or with very limited exceptions - can they be trusted to act impartially when a custodial sentence is likely given a guilty verdict? Some people hate the police, some people love the police and hate criminals some people have extreme political views...
There must be any number of beliefs that could be expressed that would render someone wholly unsuitable for service as a juror - surely if someone either declares a sincerely held belief in advance or (if it is rejected) makes sure to turn up as required and makes that belief know then they've not done anything wrong.
I mean to take an extreme example - say someone is called to a grooming gang trial.... they then declare they're a fan of Tommy Robinson and have liked various dubious social media pages and are super excited to make sure the islamo-paedos get sent down etc... I'd suspect they'd be sent home and not invited back.