Perfect jurors - Telegraph One of the most profound changes of recent times has been the ageing of the population, and yet we are only now beginning to adapt to this dramatic demographic shift. Although a compulsory age of retirement has been scrapped, it still exists in some walks of life. It is, for instance, not possible to sit on a jury in England and Wales beyond the age of 70, a ludicrous prohibition that is about to be ended. Damian Green, the justice minister, announces in this newspaper today that he intends to change the law to raise the upper age limit to 75. The last time it was raised was in 1988, from 65 to 70. This is a sensible move. As Mr Green observes, it will immediately expand the pool of potential jurors by more than two million. Moreover, this is one group of people who have the time to sit on a jury and whose jobs are less likely to be impaired when they do. They also have greater experience of life, and are less likely than their younger counterparts to ignore instructions not to tweet or search the internet, thereby causing the trial to collapse. Mr Green should, in fact, go further and follow the example from the Scottish judicial system, where the upper age limit was removed several years ago. Instead, those who are over 70 have a "right of excusal," so that if they are infirm or feel a long trial is beyond them, they can turn down a summons without facing any penalty. In a world where people are fit and healthy well into their eighties - and beyond - it is absurd to deny the justice system their expertise. The same can be said of judges, who are also made to retire at 70 under the provisions of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993. This is daft. If you can sit on a jury after the age of 70, then you must surely be allowed to sit on the bench. While he is at it, Mr Green should change that law as well.