Jury system debate

IT IS good that the Jamaican Government is ready for a serious discussion about the future of the jury system, whether it should, or can be rehabilitated, or abandoned, as proposed by Chief Justice Bryan Sykes.

This newspaper is in favour of a bit of both, including providing judges greater flexibility to conduct bench trials when it is clear that it would be in the best interest of justice and the efficiency of the courts.

Being tried by a jury of one’s peers is a longstanding feature of common law. But it is difficult not to accept that the system, in Jamaica is badly broken.

First, however, it has to be noted that with respect to Jamaica, the right to a jury trial is not absolute. What citizens are constitutionally guaranteed, as has been affirmed in several judgments, going back to the 1970s case of Trevor Stone versus the Queen, is “a fair hearing within reasonable time by an independent and impartial court established by law”.

The Jury Act stipulates trial by jury for treason and murder in circumstances in which the death penalty is applicable. While for most other indictable offences jury trials are the presumed default, the defence and the prosecution can, in writing to the judge, agree to forego such trials and opt for by judges only. Which, to the chagrin of Justice Sykes, happens rarely, as was highlighted during the COVID-19 pandemic when jury trials were suspended. There was little agreement for cases to proceed with judges alone. The upshot: cases were put off for long periods.

Arguing that their positions risked “violating the constitutional rights of their clients, which is the right of a fair trial within a reasonable time”, Chief Justice Sykes, in early 2020, urged members of the private Bar to rethink their stance.

Two years later, with the court system still reeling from the effects of the pandemic and the empanelling of juries continuing to be difficult, he went further, calling for the abandonment of jury trials.

He said, “It seems to me the time has come now to do away with jury trial because the truth is, there is nothing to suggest that jury trial is inherently a better quality of justice than a bench trial. There is no evidence to suggest that.”

Justice Sykes has buttressed his argument of the lack of evidence of the inherent superiority of jury trials with Jamaica’s crisis of finding jurors.

FORCED TO DELAY

Indeed, several times in recent years, judges have been forced to delay court sessions because too few jurors showed up, as happened last April at the start of the Easter session of the St Catherine Circuit Court. The same thing happened three months earlier at the start of the Hilary session of the same case. Then, only a single juror was present.

For the 2022 Michaelmas session of the Supreme Court in Kingston, the authorities, it was reported, prepared 4,500 summonses to jurors. Only 127, or 2.8 per cent, attended court.

The wealthy, the middle class and professional elites in particular shun jury duty.

“The only persons we find – and I ’m not saying anything is wrong with them – but they turn up: fishermen, domestic helpers, practical nurses, and soon ,” Justice Sykes lamented in a speech to business leaders in Montego Bay last December. “And so, the burden of jury service falls disproportionately on these persons .”

Among the reasons for this state of affairs is the large swathes of Jamaicans who are exempt from jury service, including civil servants, teachers, doctors, a range of other health professionals and parsons. So, too, are people who have reached the age of 70. Yet judges, who formally retire at that age, can continue, if required, on the bench until they are 75.

GAPING HOLES

These are gaping loopholes to be attended to. Critics also point out that the low stipend given to jurors – $2,000 per day when they actually serve on cases – contribute to the shambolic state of the system.

Which is why many people are surprised that it is only now, as he announced last week, that the justice minister, Delroy Chuck, is preparing a submission for the Cabinet on the crisis .

Mr Chuck also promised that the i ssue be brought to Parliament for review by a joint select committee of the House and the Senate. That must happen quickly, and that committee must invite stakeholder submissions on the issue, as well as hold public hearings.

In preparation for these proceedings, Mr Chuck should cause his proposed Cabinet submission to be developed into a government Green Paper that contains data on conviction/acquittal rates of bench versus jury trials, what happens at appeal, and the time it takes for either set of cases to be concluded.

In the meantime, the authorities must ensure that the system to encourage jurors to attend court, including the delivery of summons and penalties against deliberate and wilful absences, must be robustly enforced.

Further, Mr Chuck must insist that the proposed increase in stipends to jurors is sensible. For while being a juror is of itself a laudable civic duty, for many people it comes at a steep economic cost.

The opinions on this page, except for The Editorial, do not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Gleaner.