THE DIRECTOR of Public Prosecutions has said the current method of calling people for jury service is “unnecessary, redundant” and “a waste of citizens’ time”.
Speaking at the launch of two Law Reform Commission consultation papers, on jury service and on hearsay as evidence in civil and criminal trials, James Hamilton called for a much more efficient system of jury selection.
He also said if trial by jury is to survive, an environment in which jurors can feel secure must be provided.
Among recommendations made in the commission’s paper on hearsay, was that in civil cases hearsay should be generally admissible subject to conditions such as advance notice. In criminal cases, it should continue to be inadmissible, subject to existing exceptions. Rules on hearsay should be set out in legislation.
The paper on jury service recommended that the existing blanket excuse from service for many professionals and public servants should be replaced by an individualised excuse “for good cause”. Other recommendations included the extension of the jury panels to allow EU citizens in Ireland and long-term residents to serve.
Mr Hamilton said developments in technology made the whole process of physically assembling hundreds of jurors in a court room each morning to select 12 is “unnecessary, redundant and a waste of the time of the citizens”.
An alternative system would involve a jury panel being selected at random and invited to participate. Once numbers of willing and eligible jury panellists had been determined, their names would be circulated to the parties in the case. Defendants could then object to some people if they had cause. Then those who were actually to serve could be selected. More than 12 could be chosen to allow for peremptory challenges, challenges without cause, and these would be the only people who had to appear in court.
“The advantage of such a system would be to reduce the amount of citizens’ time wasted,” he said. It would also be much more secure against jury tampering or intimidation.
Mr Hamilton said the number of potential jurors who could be rejected by counsel without reason should be reduced to two. Attempts to distort the gender balance of a jury were no less objectionable than attempting to distort its racial balance, which has been disapproved in the US, he said.
And he said he failed to see why addresses of jurors needed to be supplied to anybody.
“If trial by jury is to survive then I think it necessary that we provide an environment in which jurors can feel secure and can feel that they can give their verdicts fairly and honestly without undue risk to themselves,” he said.
