MEDIA RELEASE – For immediate use, 15 June 2011

Juries legislation raises concerns

The New Zealand Law Society today questioned a proposed law change to disqualify from jury service people who have served sentences of home detention within the preceding five years.

Law Society spokesperson Graeme Edgeler told the Law and Order Select Committee hearing submissions on the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of the Jury List Information) Amendment Bill that the committee needed to consider whether this disqualification was warranted.

When home detention was created, those sentenced to imprisonment could apply to the Parole Board to serve all or part of their prison term as home detention, Mr Edgeler said. Because people on home detention had all received sentences of imprisonment, they were excluded from jury service for five years. However, when “front-end” home detention was created as a stand-alone sentencing option, Parliament failed to address whether home detention was akin to prison (which involves a five-year disqualification from jury service), or to other community sentences (which do not).

The Law Society recommended that the rationale underlying the proposed change be given further consideration.

Although the Law Society did not comment on the policy changes in the Bill, it emphasised that the right to a fair trial was a fundamental principle that had to underlie all criminal justice legislation.

The Law Society was concerned that the Bill proposed removing the ability for defendants to see, or even be told of, the protected particulars of prospective jurors.

This made it difficult to see how counsel would be able to assist defendants in exercising their right to challenge persons selected as jurors, Mr Edgeler said. The Law Society recommended that guidance be provided about the appropriate use of prospective jurors’ protected particulars, and that self-represented litigants be advised of their right to have counsel appointed to assist with using the protected particulars in exercising their right to challenge. The committee was also urged to consider increasing the number of peremptory challenges (the right to challenge a juror without giving a reason).

The Law Society was concerned that breaching the provisions protecting jury list information would be punishable as a contempt of court. The Law Society regarded this as an unwelcome extension of the law of contempt.

"The preparations of jury lists, and lists of protected particulars, are administrative acts essentially performed by the Ministry of Justice. They are not matters closely related to any judicial function," Mr Edgeler said

He noted actual jury tampering was not punished as a contempt of court.

The Law Society recommended that breaches of section 14A and new section 14AB are treated not as a contempt of court, but as summary offences.

ends

© Scoop Media