Editorial | Get going on jury question

Chief Justice Bryan Sykes has been beating his old refrain about the lengths to which professional and well-to-do Jamaicans will go to avoid serving on juries, leaving the gap to be filled, largely, by the poor.

“As soon as they get the jury notice, they are either suffering from any ailment short of cancer, or the business or enterprise they are in realises that the person is so indispensable,” the chief justice said on Sunday in remarks at a church service to mark the start of the judicial year.

He added: “... What that means is that as time goes on, jury service is falling disproportionately on those who can least afford. So that the bartenders, the barmaids, the cleaners and the watchmen, the groundsmen – those are the persons that are not in gated communities, unless they work there. So, those are the persons that the police find easier to find (to serve with jury summons).”

What Justice Sykes did not explicitly do this time, which was the obvious subtext of his observations, was state the urgency for jury system reform, including, possibly, moving to mandatory bench trials, where judges hear cases without juries. The chief justice, a strong advocate for judges-only trials, believes that greater use of the method would enhance the efficiency of the courts, helping to deliver more timely justice.

The Gleaner insists that this matter be high on the agenda of the justice minister in the new administration, who, if it is Delroy Chuck, must end the dithering and mild tinkering that characterised his handling of the issue during his near decade in the job.

The question of the pool from which Jamaica draws its jurors, and who actually turns up to serve, has been a worrying one for the judiciary for decades. Chief Justice Sykes has placed it frontally on the debate agenda over the more than seven years he has had the top judicial job.

MANY PROBLEMS THAT NEED FIXING

The Court Administration Division, the administrative agency for the island’s courts, does not routinely publish data on the number of people summoned for jury duty and how many respond. However, the anecdotal evidence and statistics occasionally provided by frustrated judges and other court officials point to a system in crisis.

This newspaper has in the past drawn on the examples of the 2023 Hilary and Easter sessions, in January and April, respectively, of the St Catherine Circuit Court which could not start on time because no juror turned up, despite hundreds of summonses being dispatched.

The previous year, for the Michaelmas session of the Supreme Court in Kingston, of 4,500 jurors summoned to attend, a pitiful 127 made it to court. That was less than three per cent of those who were called.

And there was the débâcle of the Mario Deane case in Montego Bay, St James, where three police officers were supposed to be tried more than a decade after being charged for manslaughter by negligence, misconduct in public office and attempting to pervert the course of justice, after Mr Deane, arrested for possession of a ganja (marijuana) cigarette, was grievously beaten in a police lock-up.

The judge, Bertram Morrison, who had previously faced jury issues in St Catherine, scolded the police for the failure of a single juror being in court, although 300 summonses were prepared for the session. None of these summonses was apparently delivered.

Justice Morrison transferred the case to the Westmoreland Circuit Court, where the officers were convicted this past May.

There are many problems that need fixing in the jury system, but the one that Mr Chuck has so far focused on will hardly convince the categories of citizens who Chief Justice Sykes identified as the shirkers to come to court. Last year, Mr Chuck increased the daily stipend paid to empanelled jurors from J$2,000 to J$6,000 (US$37).

NO INHERENT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT

What has been vigorously pursued is the seeming absence of a robust mechanism to follow up on jurors who do not attend court, and to impose the penalties provided in the law for this failure. Additionally, employers and doctors who vouch for the inability or unfitness of prospective jurors to serve appear to have a relatively free pass.

Moreover, a wide range of professionals are exempt from jury duty, including several categories of teachers, doctors, nurses, as well as full-time pastors. The logic of many of these exemptions must be reviewed.

Although some categories of crimes, including gun and anti-gang matters, are heard by judges only, the default is for trial by jury, unless the accused and prosecution agree otherwise in writing.

But Chief Justice Sykes consistently makes the point – which is consistent with rulings by the island’s highest courts – that there is no inherent constitutional right for a trial before a jury. What the Jamaican Constitution insists upon is a fair hearing, within reasonable time, before a competent court founded in law. Further, the chief justice has argued that the data show that conviction rates tend to be lower in trials where only a judge sits.

During the life of the last Parliament, Mr Chuck promised to hold committee hearings on Chief Justice Sykes’ bench trial idea, with which the minister disagrees. If Mr Chuck is still in the post, the whole range of questions should be urgently put to the committee.