Page 5743 - Week 17 - Thursday, 5 December 1991

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

ensures 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 farmer Attorney, I supported a fury review including assessing-the current exemptions frond 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 farm 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 medico( practitioners, pharmacists, dentists and veterinary surgeons; professors, lecturers and school teachers engaged in full tine teaching at universities, colleges and schools; editors of newspapers; members of the Australian Federal Police; Bremen; persons over the age of sixty years. In consequence,

the peer jury has been leavily.eby these exemptions.

. It For example, should medical practitioners sit on jurks?Are they -not better -nundet to take in the scientific evit*w:e and, -toy issues; such as grievous. bodily harm? S

houldAhe ACTs 7-,5W teasers participate.ou the Socratic notion that they are *ese aid can leave the jury room and spread, the word of simply because they probably .i,omt 596 of the otherwise eligible jury! population? why should the aver sixty years mgt stand ire judgment? Isnt this blatant, age discriminations Should not all newspaper editors spend a salutary period inJury lock-up, especially lawyer-dominated Canberra

5741

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .