Few people I know have been called for jury service and vanishingly few have ever been called twice. Apart from myself, I’ve met just one other person summonsed for a second session and I only encountered him last week!  My two experiences couldn’t have been more different. The first, which must have been more than 20 years ago  was at Isleworth Crown Court and concerned cocaine smuggling through Heathrow Airport. Within the Isleworth Court building there were many individual courts (at least a dozen and possibly many more – proximity to Heathrow keeps the courts well supplied with every sort of human misbehaviour).  The large number of courts called for many prospective jurors and as there are always more called than are needed the jury room always felt full of sedentary people working out how to fill such enforced idleness. For a day or so the most significant thing I  did was to decide what book to read after I’d read as much of the daily newspaper as held my attention.  Then, suddenly, you hear your name called and it’s all go. Cirencester Crown Court (technically Gloucester Crown Court sitting at the Cirencester Courthouse) last week was a much more intimate affair. Fourteen jurors were summoned and 12 were chosen at random. The remaining two were sent home. By the afternoon of the first day we were taken down to the court, sworn in and were listening to the Crown Prosecutor set out the Crown’s case.

The case to be decided involved a Cheltenham couple who were accused of allowing their baby daughter to suffer broken bones during the first three weeks of  her life. The mother had taken the child, aged about 19 days to the doctor after the area around the her ankle appeared swollen and was painful when touched. At this point the parents were concerned that the injury had been caused when their boisterous son of 18 months had launched himself on the sofa and accidentally kicked the baby as she lay in her father’s arms. At the hospital, a paediatrician examined the baby, looked at an X ray of the ankle, found nothing untoward – no bruising and there was good movement –  and let the parents take the baby home. However, when the consultant radiologist reviewed the ankle X ray, she identified a loose shard of bone. Further X rays and scans were then taken and these revealed additional breaks to the collar bone and to each of nine ribs. Birth trauma and systemic bone disease were ruled out. All injuries would have required significant force beyond what was reasonable in handling a baby. A consultant paediatrician went further and described the force necessary to create the injuries to the chest to be similar to that of being involved in a car crash.

The father suggested the injuries to the chest could have occurred when he dropped his X box controller and games on the baby when she was in her Moses basket. Doctors ruled this out (no bruising, insufficient force).  Neither mother nor father offered any other explanation. No other adult had sole care of the baby during the time in question. We learned from the police interviews and text messages between the parents that their relationship was very fragile, verbally, and sometimes physically, aggressive. Both parents gave verbal testimonies to the court and when cross examined reiterated that they couldn’t think how their child had received the injuries. Apart from the mother sobbing when looking at the scans and X rays, they both were very composed and cool when cross examined  – to me, cool to the point of having disengaged themselves from what had happened to their tiny baby.

At the end of the cross examinations of witnesses and defendants, prosecution and defence put their cases and the judge gave his summing up. In addition, each member of the jury received an aide memoire from the judge, highlighting the salient points we must answer when making our judgement. (This he said was something judges were only comparatively recently allowed to do  but he thought it was a very good thing – and I was only too keen to agree, as the judge’s summing up at the first trial I’d been a juror at had been long, rambling and very unclear as to what his directions actually were.)

We were told by both judge and prosecution counsel that the cause of the baby’s injuries may never be known. However, the charge was that the parents had either caused the injuries or allowed them to occur.  After a short deliberation we found both mother and father guilty. The couple will be sentenced in a month’s time after the court has received impartial reports about them and their circumstances but custodial sentences are almost certain – ranging from 1 year to a possible 3.

We were happy to learn that the little girl, who will be 3 in June, has recovered completely from her injuries. All three of the defendants’ children have been kept together and are being fostered by the grandmother. Both parents have had access to them.

I decided I would attach no photographs of embroidery to this post as I felt it should stand alone.