Jury confusion

Matters of serious public interest appear on the public agenda, but rather than applying a rational, evidence-based approach towards a solution or rational debate, these matters keep going round and round, be it the Muslimeen occupation of Mucurapo lands, the ensuing trial, constitution reform, election financing etc, etc.

Chief Justice Ivor Archie quite early publicly announced his dislike for trial by jury, preferring judges to do the job. Then there were mixed-up views coming from former Attorney General Anand Ramlogan, Mr Israel Khan, SC, Ms Pamela Elder, SC and even concern by Mr Martin Daly, SC.

Little or nothing from the Law Association. Letters to the editor flowed, mainly celebrating the “great history” that trial by jury has and its reverence as the people’s instrument for justice, etc. To abolish or not, like the death penalty, has remained lingering as an unresolved question.

In his law term report two weeks ago, while explaining the inefficiencies of the jury system, Chief Justice Ivor Archie adamantly exclaimed: “I don’t know how many times I have to make the point to those who have no understanding of how it works that if matters are heard by a judge alone he/she has to make a decision one way or the other that is definitive and subject to appeal.” He added: “If the current inefficient and ineffective (system) is what the country wants then fine, but don’t blame me for the consequences.” Wow! Apparently not caring if trial by jury is a hot political issue or not, Attorney General, Faris Al-Wari, quite a bright chap himself, announced that the required “no jury” draft is on its way.

Over my dead body, said Israel Khan. I prefer to dump my robes, followed Pamela Elder. Wow! In his tenure, former AG Ramlogan felt it wise to slowly withdraw his enthusiasm for abolishment. Will the decision to abolish trial by jury be done without proper evidence? Look, there is strong evidence about jury mismanagement, of how people consenting to be jurors are treated, appearing for service but not knowing where to go, whom to see, old-time rules about taking no notes, etc. What about repeated cross examination and adjournments? Over the years, there have been many reasons advance about the inefficiencies and ineffectiveness of the judicial system itself. It is not only about the jury system.

So CJ Archie explains: “Yes, better case management will help but it does not get to the root of the problem. This is one area in which I will continue to hammer away!” Others will also hammer, maybe in a different way. Another recipe for confusion, lacking the research evidence for making a rational, transparent decision.

Commending the research done in a book entitled Trial by Jury: Social and Psychological Dynamics, (UWI, 1985, pp 320) former Chief Justice Isaac Hyatali, wrote in the book: “A work of considerable merit, touching on an aspect of the administration of justice in the Caribbean that has been hitherto been untouched. A useful, stimulating and thought-provoking addition to the social and legal literature of the West Indies.” Another Chief Justice, Mr Cecil Kelsick, referred to this book in his own law term address. He also wrote in the book: “A significant pioneering contribution to the Jurisprudence of the Caribbean.

The result of expert research, drawing on the experience of other common law countries. The legal profession is greatly indebted for this and the author’s other scholastic work in socio-legal studies.” Both the late Mr Oswald Wilson, then president of the Law Society and Mr Frank Solomon, then president of the Bar Association recommended that the book be used as a research foundation for jury reform, “a subject that is all too susceptible to emotional argumentation.” Additionally, there are several research articles in The Lawyer when edited by Justice Rolston Nelson, SC.

Senior A t t o r - ney, Mr Kenneth L a l l a , has also written on the subject.

No need for confusion.