A self-employed mother has called for reforms to the jury system after claiming she lost $4,500 in earnings while carrying out her civil duty in Supreme Court, recently.

She said she will receive just the usual $50 a day for her time sitting on a jury, but said it was no where near the $450 a day she earned running her own business.

The woman, who asked not to be identified, said to make matters worse she will have to wait several weeks before her cheque from the Attorney General's Chambers arrives in the Post, as payments are only made every two months.

She said most people requested to sit on juries were still paid by their employers throughout their service, but she had not been and so lost a substantial amount of money.

The woman, from Pembroke, said while she understood it was her duty to sit on the jury when requested, she found the logistics of leaving her business unattended caused major problems.

She said: "Items were coming in on the docks and I couldn't pick them up - after five days there was a surcharge.

"I run my business alone and full-time, and I cannot afford to be put on jury duty.

"No one is supporting me or my mortgage payments, so don't go around telling me that I should be honoured to serve on the jury.

"Some people think, `oh you should be able to hire someone for two weeks', but you have to pay their health and social insurance and business tax. I lost a lot of money."

The woman said she believed there was no way a self-employed person could survive on the $50 a day offered by Government and suggested it be increased, to at least $150 a day and said payment should be immediate.

"After I have done my service - I am expected to wait for weeks to get paid," she said.

"Why pick on people who are trying to make an honest living?"

The woman, who is married with children, also spoke about what she called "unethical means" of summonsing members of the public to sit on a jury.

She said: "I was driving along and I received a telephone call from a Police woman.

"She asked me to come to Hamilton Police station to be served at 2.30 in the afternoon. I asked her had something happened to one of my children - or my husband?

"She said `no'. I asked if I needed legal representation and she said `no', but she could not discuss the matter over the telephone.

"I telephoned my husband to let him know what had happened and went to the station.

"I was then issued with a jury summons.

"Other jurors complained that Police officers had turned up on their jobs to issue the summons. I never received a letter in the post."

The woman said she spent two weeks as a juror on a recent Supreme Court trial and spoke out during the jury selection about the difficulties running her own business.

She said she told the judge: "I have a business to run, a mortgage to pay - I cannot sit around for two to three weeks while my business fails.

"It's just not good enough."

She said Assistant Justice Archibald Warner told her that she should have written to the courts beforehand, and that he could not excuse her at that late stage.

The woman realises now that she could have written a letter asking to be excused from jury duty, but said she thought she would be able to explain it to the judge on the day.

She believes that if she had written to the courts to ask to be excused prior to her service, she would have been called up anyway.

The disgruntled businesswoman said, besides from the pay, she felt the way she had been summoned was unprofessional and somewhat alarming.

Supreme Court worker said jurors' payments were made at the end of every two-month session.

The person said: "A session is January to February etc., so jurors who worked in January will not get paid until the end of February.

"The pay for jurors who get chosen is $50 a day, and for those not chosen the payment is $10 a day.

"At the end of the session, every juror's time is calculated and sent to the Attorney Generals offices, where the cheques are then issued."