Jury service is the cornerstone of the justice system, Judge Russell Callander observed this week.
His point was made more in exasperation than by way of explanation, but it needed to be said. He had just issued 63 arrest warrants after more than half the people summoned for jury service at
the Rotorua District Court failed to turn up. If such a level of absenteeism were to become commonplace, the justice system would, quite obviously, fall into disrepair.
In fact, Judge Callander's experience, while extreme, was not that unusual. Frustrated fellow judges had fined absent jurors in Auckland and Palmerston North. Their reaction post-dated a 2001 Law Commission report which suggested that fewer than 20 of every 100 people called to be jurors attended court. Excuses ranging from work commitments to difficulty finding childcare are wheeled out by those loath to fulfil their civic duty.
Such reasons for non-attendance are, however, only part of the picture. An inherent regard for social obligation perhaps makes people reluctant to point to what might be the most fundamental reason. Quite simply, remuneration of $50 a day for the first week of a trial and $70 a day thereafter is not a powerful incentive to want to serve on a jury. Nor is the lack of deterrence implicit in a maximum fine of $300 for failing to answer a summons; some, indeed, might find paying that more convenient than jury service. And nor are often uncomfortable courtroom surroundings, the sometimes brusque treatment of jurors and the possibility of becoming involved in a long-running trial.
The Law Commission report suggested remedies. Improved financial compensation for jurors was to be the main carrot; an increased penalty for those failing to answer a summons for jury service would be the stick. Two years on, nothing has been done. The Government is taking seemingly forever to enact what should be logical responses to an escalating problem.
Now it says that legislation may come before Parliament within six months. This will include the stick: jurors who ignore summonses for service are likely to face a maximum fine of $1000. But the Government seems reluctant to increase the financial compensation, although this is not only warranted but overdue. Nor does it appear keen to introduce a necessary element of flexibility so that where financial loss from jury service can be proved, increased payment can be made.
Other likely components of the legislation will help. A reduction in the number of challenges to jurors, for example. People will be less likely to face the prospect of turning up to court, being challenged by counsel who know only their address and occupation, and walking away with a mere $25 and the memory of a wasted morning. The chance to defer jury service to a more convenient time of the year will also be beneficial. Additionally, there will be a considerable saving of time if the Government, as seems likely, allows majority verdicts.
Yet in many ways such measures are tinkering around the edges. Logic suggests that the low level of reimbursement is the key reason people fail to answer jury summonses. And that while jury duty continues to involve financial hardship, there will be a high level of absenteeism. Concepts of civic duty and social obligation become frayed if they carry a cost in personal hardship. Or if the stage for that duty seems remote or repressive. Indeed, harsher penalties for non-attendance, and the more frequent application of these by a Judiciary determined to show that breaches of summonses will not be treated lightly, could prove counterproductive.
A more balanced approach, incorporating increased payments, is required. This would help to ensure that jurors do not feel under unnecessary stress. When those in the jury box are catered for well, justice will be well served.
Pay just
per week ongoing
Pay just
per year ongoing
30
