Jury selection process ‘seriously compromised’

Jan 30, 2012 News

---

 

 

– legal official

By Latoya Giles

The system to select jurors for Criminal Assizes in the High Courts of Guyana is badly flawed and needs urgent revamping, some legal officials say.
One legal source told Kaieteur News that the selection process is compromised and this has resulted in injustice even where there is cogent, compelling and overwhelming evidence implicating accused persons.
The law and practice as it relates to qualification of jurors and jury lists are spelled out in Sections 17-47 of the Criminal Law (Procedure) Act, Chapter 10:01. A person serving as a juror must be between the ages of 18-60 and those exempted are set out in the First Schedule of the said Act, namely, Judges of the Supreme Court, Members of the Legislature, The Mayor, Members of the Military Forces, Public Officers, The President’s Private Secretary, Diplomats and Consular Officers, Ministers of Religion, Attorneys-at-Law and their Clerks, Registered Medical and Dental practitioners in practice, Registered Pharmacists, Nurses practicing their profession, Registered sick-nurses and Dispensers, Overseers of Local Authorities, Members of the Special Constabulary and certain specified positions being held by persons in the Mayor and City Council, such as The Town Clerk, City Engineer and GUYWA, such as the Chief Engineer and the Assistant Engineer.
Persons also exempted include those who cannot speak, read and write English; those outside the prescribed age limit, those convicted of any offence involving dishonesty or for any offence in respect of which he has served a prison term exceeding six months, unless a free pardon has been received; those who have been committed for trial and those who have preliminary inquiries into any indictable offence pending, as well as those who, at the time of the trial, are suffering from deafness, dumbness, blindness or imbecility.
Other than those exemptions, the Registrar of the Supreme Court has at her disposal, all other Guyanese citizens within the prescribed age limit, once they are in receipt of an income, or is the owner or lessee of immovable property and resides within forty miles (40) from the place where the sittings of the court at which he/she is liable to serve are held.
The source said that for the longest while now, there has been no proper revision of the Jury List, even though Section 25 of the said Act makes provisions for the Chief Justice to appoint magistrates or lawyers to revisit the list for the particular County.
This newspaper was told that during many High Court cases, for which accused persons are tried for offences such as murder and rape, selected jurors are observed sleeping while witnesses are giving evidence, and many are seen chewing gum.
A noticeable trend also is that important aspects of evidence are missed by jurors and this is revealed through the questions some of them ask. In many instances, the Trial Judge has to go to his/ her notes to show the juror that that issue was already dealt with.
A look at the Jury lists for the Two Panels before the High Court would reveal that when requests are made by the Registrar for persons to serve as jurors, most companies/ organizations release the persons they have the least use for. This is evident in the occupation column of the jury list.
One source has indicated that the Jury list is left to be prepared by some very young High Court marshals. And even though provision is made in the Act for the exemption of a person who has already served on a panel for two years, every session it is observed that persons from the previous session would return for jury service. This is indicative of the unrevised Jury List, the unsupervised selection of prospective jurors and the breakdown of proper procedure which is required for this serious process.
Many of the persons whose names are finally selected for a panel would come to Court armed with written requests for exemptions which they forward to the Trial Judge who hears their cause before making a decision on whether to exempt them.
Those who are chosen to serve on a case seem lost in all the legal jargon of the proceedings and are caught up by other matters other than the evidence which is most important.
During the October, 2011, Sessions, the murder trial of accused, Cyon Collier called ‘Picture Boy’ became a fashion show for the jury’s benefit as Collier wore 14 different suits for the 14 days of his trial. As he posed for photographs, even though this is specifically disallowed in any Court, the jurors were observed smiling in admiration and some were even seen saying hello to him, acknowledging his nods etc.
The sources further stated that it was on the last day when the Trial Judge was summing up the evidence that a court official walked past the Courtroom and noticed one of the female jurors and the defendant talking. According to the source, it was brought to the Court’s attention. It was noted that this particular juror should have been banned from jury duty for life as she was previously involved in a matter where there were allegations of jury tampering. The verdict came back undecided at around 10:00pm.
One State Counsel indicated that prosecutors already have an uphill task to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and when the system itself is not working as efficiently as it should, and jurors are not listening attentively, it only makes their task all the more difficult.
The source further stressed that jurors lose sight of the fact that in a murder trial, a life has been lost in very tragic circumstances and the victim’s relatives are looking towards the 12 jurors to be the voice of reason and give them justice. “Some of the jurors are not true to the oath they have taken to return a true verdict in accordance with the evidence before them,” the source said. “But we will continue everyday to do what we have to do as Ministers of Justice because that is what Prosecutors are….where there is a law, we seek to enforce it, where there is a crime, we prosecute it and where there is a victim, we will speak for him.”
Another observed that jurors seem to come to Court with a particular mind-set: to set the accused free no matter what evidence is led. Some of the accused themselves are well coached as to how to behave before the jury. They are impeccably dressed and they target the young women on the jury, make eye contact and smile and this goes on daily.
One observer noted that there will never be any such thing as justice once this situation prevails. “There is no seriousness about anything in the courts of this country, only a breakdown of law and order. A murder trial is now a circus. They may as well open the gates to Camp Street and let everyone out. Needed urgently are persons who are keen, intelligent, have a good grasp and can understand what is happening. We need jurors like long ago. Those days a Court was a Court. You could hear a pin drop and you used to feel afraid when you enter a courtroom. Today, it is just a big farce, a sham. Trial by jury is a mockery.”

---

---