‘Problem is significant,’ says lawyer
The provincial Jury Act and Jury Regulations provide for “reasonable” compensation for travel expenses incurred by jurors, including mileage for private vehicles, public transportation, accommodation and meals. They also provide a $15 per diem for attending jury selection.
Murphy said that does not go far enough to assist jurors who live in remote areas, especially Indigenous people in the province’s north, who do not always have the means to respond to a jury summons that requires them to travel hundreds of kilometres.
Saskatoon-based criminal defence lawyer Brian Pfefferle said while it would be disrespectful to suggest a different jury would reach a different verdict in any specific case, there is little question that Indigenous representation on juries needs to be improved.
“Why is it that when our clients are First Nations people, we can’t seem to get a single visibly Indigenous or Metis person on our juries? The problem is significant … Perception is reality, and I think that the perceived benefit of having diversity on a jury is a good thing.”
Murphy also raised the issue of peremptory challenges, a tool lawyers can use to dismiss potential jurors without cause. Stanley’s lawyer, Scott Spencer, challenged all visibly Indigenous potential jurors before the trial began last month in Battleford.
“It was really difficult to sit there today and watch every single visible Indigenous person be challenged by the defence,” Boushie’s cousin, Jade Tootoosis, said after the jury was empaneled.
Because peremptory challenges are laid out in the Criminal Code, the responsibility for change lies with the federal government. Hours after the verdict, federal Justice Minister Jody WilsonRaybould said in a post on social media that Canada “can and must do better.”
Asked about the possibility of ending peremptory challenges, Morgan cited a 2013 report by former Supreme Court of Canada justice Frank Iacobucci that recommended amending the law to prevent peremptory challenges that discriminate against Indigenous people.
“I think we’re open to have those kinds of discussions with the federal government … we’d be willing participants,” he said.
“We don’t want to do it in the context of the present case before the courts or make any comment on that, but it’s a worthwhile discussion to have.”