Report 117 (2007) - Jury selection - Law Reform Commission : Lawlink NSW

15.2 In this chapter, we examine the way in which the Sheriff’s Office currently manages the system, and the means by which administrative change could be made to assist in the implementation of our recommendations.

15.3 Recent research¹ confirms that juror satisfaction and confidence in the criminal justice system are strongly correlated with actual exposure to that system, particularly if the exposure occurred as a result of serving as a juror in a criminal trial. That research has identified potential barriers to service, such as: the quantum of the allowances payable and any financial burdens suffered by a juror, particularly in the case of lengthy trials; the lack of accurate information of a kind which could allay common myths and misconceptions in relation to the onerous nature of jury duty; employment security concerns; and the existence of child care responsibilities for which provision is not usually available.

15.4 It has also identified the significance of the adequacy and comfort of the jury facilities and amenities, such as the assembly rooms, the jury rooms and jury boxes, the absence or presence of access to natural light, the quality of the acoustics and electronic or visual aids provided in the court rooms, as well as the sufficiency of the services provided, including, for example, the meals or meal allowance, the extent to which alternatives are available for self-catering, including microwave ovens, refrigerators and the like, the existence or non existence of computer terminals or televisions, or access to outdoor spaces during lengthy waits for the court to reassemble, and the extent to which jurors are kept informed of the reasons for any delays or interruptions to the trial.² Similarly identified as of importance for juror satisfaction has been the way in which jurors are treated by jury administrators and court staff.

15.5 These studies also showed that jurors reacted positively to the social aspects of serving as a juror. Such aspects are likely to be overlooked unless one has had the actual experience of being involved in a jury trial. These were said to include:

15.8 Moreover, jury administrators are best placed to conduct evaluations of the experience of those who have served as jurors and as a result are able to identify and address possible areas of concern, and to provide assistance to those jurors who may have found the experience overly confronting or distressing. They would also be in a position to give the jurors closure by keeping them informed of the sentencing process that follows their verdict.

15.9 It is for this reason that we next examine in a general way the current administrative arrangements for jury management in NSW and Victoria, and suggest that there be a separate review of the way in which this should best be delivered.

15.10 The jury system in NSW is currently managed by staff attached to the Office of the Sheriff, in consultation with the courts. Some of the services for the supply of jurors are provided from the Downing Centre Office of the Sheriff in Sydney, while others are provided from the Office of the Sheriff located at courthouses within the wider metropolitan and/or country regions.

15.11 The functions and powers vested in the Sheriff and his or her staff are derived pursuant to the Sheriff Act 2005 (NSW) which provides that “the Sheriff has and may exercise such functions as are conferred or imposed on the Sheriff by or under this or any other Act or law”.⁸

15.12 The Sheriff’s Office is an agency in the NSW Attorney General’s Department that comes within the Court Services Division. It is staffed by uniformed Sheriffs Officers, clerical officers, court officers, and staff of the Administrative Unit.

15.13 The Office has a wide variety of roles, not all of which are related to jury service. For example, the Sheriff and the Sheriff’s Officers have also been given law enforcement responsibilities for the service of process, the enforcement of writs, warrants and orders, including property seizure orders under the Fines Act, the auction of seized goods, the provision of security for court complexes and judicial officers, and, in some locations, the provision of officers to assist the running of the courts.

15.14 Currently, the Office consists of an Administrative Unit located at the Downing Centre, the Sheriff’s Operations Centre also located at the Downing Centre, and 52 Sheriff’s Office Centres located throughout the State, each of which is allocated to one of six regions, three being based in the Sydney metropolitan area, and three being based outside it.

15.15 The Administrative Unit includes the Jury Division, which is responsible for the preparation of jury rolls for the 73 jury districts in the State, issuing notices of inclusion on each jury roll and summoning people from the jury roll to undertake jury duty. The Administrative Unit deals with applications to be excused from duty for the Supreme Court sitting at Darlinghurst and King Street and for the Sydney District Court that are received before the day appointed in each summons. It is also tasked with responsibilities for the provision of finance and support services for the Office as a whole, the provision and support of information technology, the training and organisational development of staff, and the maintenance of instructions for all areas of the Office’s operations.

15.16 Staff of the Sheriff’s Office, including uniformed officers, are variously responsible for the working of the jury system from the issue of summonses until the conclusion of each jury trial, including the payment of allowances. The involvement of Sheriff’s Office staff varies depending upon the court served. Outside of the central Sydney courts, staff of the Sheriff’s Office share the duty of managing juries with their other general duties in relation to the service of process, enforcement of court orders, and so on, to the point where, at some courts, all this other work has to stop, at least while juries are empanelled.

15.17 At the District Court in the Downing Centre in Sydney, as already noted, the Sheriff’s administrative staff, a Jury Room Co-ordinator and clerk, are responsible for processing jurors when they first attend and for dealing with any initial applications to be excused. Court officers assist with the assembly and selection of jurors, and are responsible for the welfare and supervision of jurors once empanelled. The court officers, who may include casual and temporary staff, are employed by the Sheriff and report to the Jury Room Co-ordinator.

15.18 At the Supreme Court in Sydney and all regional courthouses, uniformed Sheriff’s Officers process jurors when they first attend and deal with initial applications to be excused. In the Supreme Court in Sydney (criminal jurisdiction) and all District Courts outside of the Downing Centre, court officers employed by the Sheriff are responsible for the welfare and supervision of jurors once empanelled. These court officers report to the Officer-in-Charge at the particular courthouse, who is a uniformed Sheriff’s Officer. In the Supreme Court in Sydney (civil jurisdiction), the court officers who are responsible for the welfare and supervision of jurors once empanelled are employed by the Supreme Court Registry and report to an officer of the Supreme Court.

15.19 Sheriff’s Officers undergo 12 weeks of training before appointment. Court officers, on the other hand, are often part-time, temporary or casual employees and have not undergone any particular training in relation to jury management.

15.20 Concerns were expressed to us in our consultations as to the overall adequacy of training in relation to jury management, and the suggestion was made that more comprehensive instruction should be given, and guidelines additional to the existing documents (which deal only with juror excusal) developed, to ensure consistency of the system across the State. We have been informed that, at present, the need to leave the management of jury operations (beyond the establishment of the rolls and issue of summonses) to regional centres leads to different practices and approaches being adopted by the local staff who are entrusted with the task of managing the applications for excusal, the empanelment of jurors, the supervision of the jury once empanelled, the provision of meals and security, and arranging for the payment of the relevant allowances.

15.21 Although the provision of facilities for jurors at the various courthouses, such as the jury rooms and jury boxes, is more directly the responsibility of the courts, the arrangements for the initial assembly of jurors and other matters relating to their supervision, support and payment remain the responsibility of the Office of the Sheriff and that Office can have a direct influence on the extent to which individual jurors find their service satisfactory or not.

15.22 We were informed during the course of our consultations that one of the chief administrative impediments to implementing an effective system is the antiquated computer system currently in use. Problems with that system relate to such matters as the inability to extract useful statistical reports on the operation of the jury system, to alter the parameters for jury districts, or to integrate other government systems for the purpose of identifying disqualified or ineligible jurors. This system compares unfavourably with that in Victoria, where an application has been specifically developed for the Office of the Jury Commissioner. If our recommendations are to be implemented, particularly those concerning the possible use of a smart electoral roll, then it would be important to update the NSW system, so as to provide a more efficient management tool.

15.23 We note that the policy and practice guidelines of the Office contemplate the storage of decisions made by its officers in relation to the discretionary excusal of jurors for the purpose of supporting an internal management audit. Such a function could be supported by a revised computer program, which could also record judicially decided excusals, thereby providing a comprehensive analysis of the extent to which jurors are excused and the reasons for the decisions.

15.24 A consistent theme of our consultations was that a thorough revision of all documentation and processes is required to ensure that people are encouraged to undertake jury service, rather than left with the impression that it is an irksome matter, best avoided. An important matter to be addressed in this respect is the provision of adequate material to inform jurors of their rights and the obligations of jury service, and at the same time to promote the important community functions and benefits connected with that form of service.

15.25 The Sheriff has the benefit of receiving the advice, from time to time, of the Jury Task Force, a committee including representatives of the Attorney General’s Department, the Office of the Sheriff, the courts and the legal profession. It is able to respond to specific problems and to suggest legislative change. In the past, it has conducted far-reaching reviews.⁹ As such, it is a valuable source of informed advice which should be involved in the consideration of the implementation of our recommendations.

15.26 In Victoria, the Juries Act 2000 (Vic) provides for the appointment of a Juries Commissioner and for Deputy Juries Commissioners to assist the Commissioner.¹⁰ The Office of the Juries Commissioner is a stand-alone office, reporting administratively to the Supreme Court. The office is based in the sole jury assembly room for the Melbourne district within the purpose-built County Court building (across the road from the Supreme Court). The office is autonomous, and is dedicated to the administration of the jury system, and, therefore, does not have to deal with the many other competing responsibilities that attach to the Office of the Sheriff in NSW.

15.27 The Juries Commissioner adopts a hands-on role, dealing directly with the courts and often personally explaining to potential jurors in the assembly room in Melbourne the workings of the system, and the obligations and entitlements of jury service.

15.28 This direct contact, and the dedicated computer system, allows for a close monitoring of the system that can identify and lead to the correction of any anomalies or difficulties. Moreover, the standard questionnaire and attached documents which require completion by any person claiming ineligibility or disqualification or seeking to be excused or to have their service deferred, are very user-friendly and superior to the documents currently forwarded to jurors in NSW. Our attention has been drawn to a number of deficiencies in these documents and in the orientation video.¹¹

15.29 Deputy Juries Commissioners, mostly Court Registrars, have been appointed for each jury district in Victoria and are responsible for the delivery of jury services outside the Melbourne district. Juries officers are directly reportable to the Juries Commissioner, but authority has been delegated to the Deputies. Previously, the Deputy Sheriff in each district was responsible for the management of juries. This meant there were no consistent practices because there was no hierarchy of control. The Juries Commissioner now provides assistance and direction to the districts outside Melbourne to allow them to manage juries more effectively and in a consistent manner across the State.

15.30 We are strongly of the view that the Sheriff’s Office should have a positive role at all stages of jury service of promoting jury service as a worthwhile and valuable contribution to the community generally and the criminal justice system in particular. It should be an objective of the Sheriff’s Office to ensure the elimination of features that potentially disenfranchise or discourage service by those who are summoned, and additionally to promote best practice in the provision of jury services. The performance of that objective we regard as important for the enhancement of juror satisfaction and for the reinforcement of the community’s confidence in the criminal justice system.

15.31 The ability of the Sheriff’s Office to manage the jury system in the most cost effective and efficient way would, in our view, be considerably enhanced by forming a separate division within that office with functions similar to the Victorian Juries Commissioner’s Office.

15.32 The creation of such a division would provide an opportunity for an overall review of the Office’s practices, the documentation provided to jurors and the orientation video, leading to the adoption of uniform best practice across the State. This could also assist in providing a more appropriate basis for regional management at selected key centres. In order to enhance the experience of jury duty, we envisage that such a division would regularly evaluate their services – for example, by surveying jurors – and be responsive to juror feedback.

15.33 We have been impressed by the careful and detailed management regime adopted by the Victorian Jury Commissioner’s Office, whose duties are confined to the management of the jury system. We would expect benefits similar to those experienced in Victoria if that model was adopted as an alternative to the creation of a dedicated division within the NSW Sheriff’s Office.

15.34 We recognise that before either of these changes could occur, a detailed cost benefit analysis would be required, which would be worthy of a separate review by government, with the assistance of the Jury Task Force.

Table of contents

1. R Matthews, L Hancock, D Briggs, Jurors’ perceptions, understanding, confidence and satisfaction in the jury system: a study in six courts, Home Office Online Report 05/04 (2004); J Goodman-Delahunty, N Brewer, J Clough, J Horan, J Ogloff, and D Tait, Practices, Policies and Procedures that Influence Juror Satisfaction in Australia, (Draft) Report to the Criminology Research Council (2007) not yet published.

2. J Goodman-Delahunty, N Brewer, J Clough, J Horan, J Ogloff, and D Tait, Practices, Policies and Procedures that Influence Juror Satisfaction in Australia, Report to the Criminology Research Council (2007) not yet published, ch 6.

3. J Goodman-Delahunty, N Brewer, J Clough, J Horan, J Ogloff, and D Tait, Practices, Policies and Procedures that Influence Juror Satisfaction in Australia, Report to the Criminology Research Council (2007) not yet published, 75, 76, 79.

4. J Goodman-Delahunty, N Brewer, J Clough, J Horan, J Ogloff, and D Tait, Practices, Policies and Procedures that Influence Juror Satisfaction in Australia, Report to the Criminology Research Council (2007) not yet published, vi.

5. R Matthews, L Hancock, D Briggs, Jurors’ perceptions, understanding, confidence and satisfaction in the jury system: a study in six courts, Home Office Online Report 05/04 (2004), 15.

6. And also in the illuminating account of one individual’s experience of jury service in NSW: M Knox, Secrets of the Jury Room (Random House Australia, 2005).

7. R Matthews, L Hancock, D Briggs, Jurors’ perceptions, understanding, confidence and satisfaction in the jury system: a study in six courts, Home Office Online Report 05/04 (2004).

8. Sheriff Act 2005 (NSW) s 4. See, eg Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) Part 8; Coroners Act 1980 (NSW) s 37; Court Security Act 2005 (NSW) s 21; District Court Act 1973 (NSW) s 25; Fines Act 1996 (NSW) s 72-76A, s 80A, s 89B; Housing Act 2001 (NSW) s 27; Industrial Relations Commission Rules 1996 (NSW) cl 238; Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (NSW) s 35; Uniform Civil Procedures Rules 2005 (NSW) r 11.15, r 39.4.

11. For example, it is apparent that some of the documents contain spelling errors of a kind which do not engender confidence and do not contain sufficient explanatory statements. The notice of inclusion is misleading in so far as it advises the recipient that he or she has been “selected for jury duty” for a nominated period, the format for providing an answer in relation to the schedules concerned with disqualification, ineligibility and exemption as of right, differs between each category and also within each category; while the video is relatively uninformative about the trial process, and gives undue prominence to matters relevant to one part of the excusal process: J Goodman-Delahunty, N Brewer, J Clough, J Horan, J Ogloff, and D Tait, Practices, Policies and Procedures that Influence Juror Satisfaction in Australia, (Draft) Report to the Criminology Research Council (2007) not yet published, 43-45, 58-59.