Page 5343 - Week 17 - Tuesday, 3 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
that it would be representative of the community, not of the defendant's social class. Whilst the right of challenge for good cause should remain, purposeful discrimination by counsel, such as eliminating all persons of non-English speaking background, should attract the sanctions of the Discrimination Act 1991 of the ACT.
The system of exemption from jury service should be reviewed. Ironically, the Juries Ordinance 1967 is still the responsibility of the Commonwealth because the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988 ensured that it will not become an ACT law until the ACT Supreme Court becomes a territorial responsibility on or before 1 July 1992. Delaying the court transfer has delayed reform, and the chances of a proper financial settlement for the court from the Commonwealth have evaporated. As former Attorney, I supported a jury review, including assessing the current exemptions from jury service pursuant to section 11 of the ordinance and the Jury Exemption Regulations of the Commonwealth which apply to the ACT. No doubt it is now on the Labor backburner.
Current exemptions from jury service include ministers of religion; employees of the government of an overseas country or of an international organisation; practising barristers and solicitors and their employees; practising medical practitioners, pharmacists, dentists and veterinary surgeons; professors, lecturers and schoolteachers engaged in full-time teaching at universities, colleges and schools; editors of newspapers; members of the Australian Federal Police; firemen; and persons over the age of 60 years. In consequence, the peer jury has been heavily eroded by these exemptions.
For example, should medical practitioners sit on juries? Are they not better minded to take in the scientific evidence and to assess issues such as grievous bodily harm? Should the ACT's 7,500 teachers participate, on the Socratic notion that they are wise and can leave the jury room and spread the word, or simply because they probably represent 5 per cent of the otherwise eligible jury population? Why should those over 60 years not stand in judgment? Is this not blatant age discrimination? Should not all newspaper editors - I repeat, all newspaper editors - spend a salutary period in jury lock-up, especially the lawyer dominated Canberra Times editorial desk? These issues are not being faced, and they should be. They exemplify the desultory criminal law reform process in this Territory.
How does the juror take an oath to faithfully try a defendant and give a true verdict when the jury is faced with opposing expert scientific evidence? Why is the jury the butt end of our failure to create an independent
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .