Disability equality on juries a sham

It is apparently beyond the wit of either the jury summoning office or the courts to take note of what is needed to serve as a juror if you can’t see, writes Anna Tylor

Living with a sight impairment, I know that I’m more likely to be the victim of crime than my fully sighted counterparts, less likely to get legal redress, and this week I discovered that my right to serve as a juror is a sham. It is apparently beyond the wit of either the jury summoning office or one of the most important courts outside London to take note of what is needed to serve successfully as a juror if you can’t see, and therefore to ensure a robust, inclusive or truly representative jury system. I made repeated requests for accessible formats, only to be ignored. When I arrived at court they pleaded ignorance of my sight impairment. Publicly and repeatedly, I had to explain myself. I had to endure the public humiliation of passing notes to the judge to say I couldn’t read the evidence before being dismissed as a juror. My personal business played out as a public shambles in front of everyone from the dock to the press gallery. In discharging me, the judge assured me that she had complained about my treatment. But without the weight of the law neither she nor I have the power to ensure I am treated reasonably. Only parliament can do that, but it does not. Twenty years after disability equalities legislation, the justice system remains exempt to this important principle.
Anna Tylor
Chair, Greater London Fund for the Blind

• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com

Continue reading... February 05, 2018 at 11:29PM