In order to operate optimally, the territory’s justice system needs comprehensive jury reform. This process should involve public consultations, and it should culminate in the replacement of the 100-year-old legislation that currently regulates the formation and function of juries.
A glaring indication of the problems with the 1914 Jury Act is that some of its provisions are effectively being ignored.
The law, for example, requires the High Court Registry to draw the jury pool from a list of eligible residents, a category that includes non-belongers who have lived here for at least 10 years. Instead, jurors are drawn from a list of registered voters, and non-belongers are eliminated altogether.
Unfortunately, a recent attempt at reform appears to have stalled. In 2009, after recommendations from the Law Reform Commission, legislators introduced a new Jury Act. But the law was never passed. In the 2011 and 2012 speeches from the Throne, the government pledged to amend or replace the 1914 legislation, but those promises were dropped from last year’s Throne speech.
They should be revisited soon, after consultations with the legal community and the wider public.
The proposed 2009 law includes several measures that seem like no-brainers, such as eliminating the archaic property ownership requirement for jurors and raising certain fines.
Other proposed steps are likely to be more controversial. For example, the 2009 law would codify the existing practice of drawing jury candidates from the voters list. Though this step would bring legislation in line with current practice, its merits are up for debate: Some attorneys support the existing system; others complain that the exclusion of non-belongers shrinks the jury pool in a small territory that already struggles to impanel a jury with no conflict of interest.
The proposed 2009 law also would reform a system that many defence attorneys believe to be unfair: Currently, the prosecution can object to an unlimited number of jurors for any reason, while the defence is limited to three. The new law would limit both sides to three, a change that some defence attorneys say would level the playing field.
Additionally, the proposed law would update various juror qualifications; require more candidates to be called for each trial; and levy new penalties for jury fraud. All of these proposed steps merit careful consideration.
We hope that reform comes soon. Residents’ right to a fair trial could depend on it.
{fcomment}