Glasgow juror fined for sleeping through indictment

Having previously expressed his irritation at having to attend the court in a telephone conversation, he told the macer, fellow jurors and substitutes "you will not get my attention at any point" and that he did not want to be there.

Having been spoken to by the clerk, Mr Higgins said "I have zero interest in this" and, having been told that was not a valid reason to be excused, declared "I will just sit there like a statue".

While the indictment was being read to the court, the clerk had to pause twice as Mr Higgins "appeared to be sleeping".

He was later dismissed from the jury and charged with contempt of court, due to his refusal to carry out the duties of a juror.

Read More: Neil Mackay: Rising tide of youth violence reveals dark failings in Scottish society

In mitigation, Mr Higgins' counsel stated that he was experiencing issues with his mental health after the breakdown of a long-term relationship and had been prescribed medication by his GP.

It was further stated that he first heard the nature of the charges when read out by the clerk, which triggered memories of events in the personal life of someone close to him.

Judge Young said in sentencing: "I am prepared to accept that both of the circumstances you have referred to are grounded in reality. That being so, you came to court with information known only to you, that may have been relevant to your ability to sit as a juror.

"Prospective jurors are repeatedly told that court staff want to know if there are any matters which would make it difficult for them to sit as jurors. This procedure is not carried out in public. Jurors first have a private conversation with the court clerk by telephone. Once they come to court, they have another opportunity to speak in private to the clerk. A face-to-face meeting is offered on request, where delicate information can be disclosed.

"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.

Read More: Boy, 14, arrested in connection with drugs offence after death of teenager

"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.

"I consider that the matters mentioned today do provide significant mitigation of your behaviour. As a result, I am going to reduce the penalty significantly below the level that I would otherwise find appropriate.

"The sentences available are restricted to admonishment, a fine, and a custodial sentence. Given your behaviour on the day, as mitigated by the new information provided to me, I consider that this case falls between the extremes of custody and admonition. Therefore a financial penalty is appropriate.

"I have considered all of the information provided. This includes your lack of previous convictions, your work history, your caring responsibilities, your remorse, and your income.

"Overall, I consider that an appropriate fine is £400. As stated, this is considerably less than would have been appropriate without the mitigation which has been provided.”