Jury selection needs overhaul

Re: “Ottawa takes big step toward fairer juries” (Opinion, April 3)

The federal government’s introduction of Bill C-75 happened a few days after my first experience of the jury selection process.

The experience brought into focus the manner in which potential jurors are rejected by lawyers for the defence or for the Crown: no reasons for rejection need be given.

This became an issue after the Colten Boushie trial in Saskatchewan. Kent Roach writes that peremptory challenges were used by the defence to keep five visibly Indigenous people off the jury.

Here in Montreal, I observed another aspect of jury selection, which, I suggest, deserves closer scrutiny.

From an initial pool of 300 or so of us, only 14 (a jury of 12 and two alternates) were chosen. Perhaps this seems reasonable, but the process took over nine hours (with breaks), and of the approximately 150 of us called, one by one, into the courtroom, around nine of every 10 were excused, or rejected without reason being given.

I suggest that if excuses are processed earlier, and reasons for rejection are required as Bill C-75 proposes, the process of jury selection would be significantly expedited, with consequent savings of time and money, and a greater efficiency of the court system as a whole.

And those members of the public who spend time cooling their heels waiting to be called might regain some of what are otherwise wasted days.

R. (dik) Harris, Pointe-Claire