Glasgow juror who had ‘zero interest’ and ‘slept through proceedings’ fined £400

A juror who had ‘zero interest’ in a trial and pretended to sleep through court proceedings has been fined £400. Ian Higgins was selected for jury duty in September but was said to have ‘expressed displeasure’ at having to attend court in a telephone call a day before the ballot, claiming this would result in a loss of income.

As the trial got underway, Higgins told the macer, other jurors and substitutes that he had “zero interest” in the case and that he will ‘not get his attention at no point’. A clerk then explained that the trial would be relatively short but he insisted having “zero interest”, before adding: “I will just sit there like a statue.”

During court proceedings as the indictment was being read out, the clerk had to pause twice as Higgins “appeared to be sleeping”. Both the prosecution and defence teams pointed out he made a “deliberate show of closing his eyes as if he was not participating” and called for him to be replaced by a substitute. Higgins was subsequently removed from the jury and faced charges of contempt of court due to his refusal to fulfil the responsibilities expected of a juror.

Judge Young, who handed the fine at Glasgow High Court on Monday (November 6), said: “The role of the juror does not simply require presence at court. It also requires participation in the trial process. This involves listening to the evidence, speeches and legal directions, participating in the deliberations, and voting on a verdict. 

“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.”

The trial, which included a charge of rape, lasted a week with Judge Young praising a substitute juror who he said “did not shirk her responsibility.” He said:  “At that stage, you had sat in court with the other jury members, before the court personnel and the accused. 

“Your behaviour had twice been drawn to the attention of those present in court, but you did not either change the way you behaved, or offer any explanation. This cannot be regarded as a single spontaneous comment that you immediately regretted. This was a stance that you adopted and expressed throughout your appearance at court.”

In mitigation, Higgins was said to have been experiencing mental health issues after a breakdown of a long-term relationship. He was said to have taken time off work and prescribed medication but none of the issues were mentioned to the court staff prior to the trial, Judge Young added. 

Higgins was also said that the nature of the charges triggered memories of events in his personal life of someone close to him, citing his emotional reaction was the reason behind his behaviour. But Judge Young added he did not mention this to the court staff.

Judge Young said: “Individual decisions on whether jurors can be excused are made on a case-by-case basis. However, the two matters that you have now raised would at the very least have been matters that court staff and the judge would have considered carefully if they had been disclosed.

“Instead, by your own account, you repeatedly chose to conceal the true reasons for your reluctance. You repeatedly gave false reasons and acted in court in a way that aroused concern.

“Be clear about this: it is not contempt of court for a person to be genuinely unable to sit as a juror in a particular trial. This is a common occurrence. Instead, it is your deliberate and repeated behaviour, including statements that you now say were false, made openly in front of the other jurors, that brings about these contempt proceedings.”