Why ‘fix’ fair process for jury selection?

Re: Liberals look to abolish peremptory challenges with Bill C-75, March 29.

Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould recently unveiled Bill C-75. This bill proposes, among other reforms, to eliminate use of peremptory challenges, which allow lawyers to reject potential jurors without giving reasons. This change has been introduced after the murder trial of Saskatchewan farmer Gerald Stanley, who was acquitted in the shooting death of an Indigenous man named Colten Boushie.

The defence lawyer rejected any juror who might have been Indigenous. He di ditto serve the best interest of his client. Was it fair and equitable? The answer will differ depending on which side of the fence you occupy.

A Crown lawyer would want to select jurors who would be as sympathetic to the victim as possible. Hence, the push to see more Indigenous individuals on a jury where the victim was Indigenous.

Defence lawyers would want to select jurors sympathetic to the accused. Hence, their natural fear of jurors who might be potentially biased against the client. Biased jurors could also lead to a hung jury if the evidence presented pointed in favour of finding the accused not guilty.

This latter consequence could be expensive financially and emotionally for both sides and in the long run, create worse reactions among different racialized communities, leading to a loss of confidence in our justice system.

Wilson-Raybould and all Canadians need to seriously address this fear before going ahead with such a reform. Why are we trying to fix what has proven to be a just, fair and equitable jury selection process? We need to protect the fundamental principle that finds an accused innocent until found guilty. The proposed reform undermines this principle.

Ghislain St-Jacques, Ottawa