I. INTRODUCTION

5.1 In the criminal jury trial fairness to the accused is most important. This fairness requires that the tribunal is both impartial and competent. The conditions not which jurors serve can enhance their effectiveness, efficiency and competence. If the conditions are poor, they can seriously undermine these qualities. The conditions will also affect the willingness of citizens to undertake jury service and the enthusiasm and confidence with which they perform it. This Chapter considers current conditions under four broad headings: information, physical conditions, compensation and personal protections.

II. INFORMATION

5.2 A juror is expected to hear evidence and argument and then deliberate upon a verdict. The juror’s capacity to perform this task will be impaired if” he or she is confused about the role and obligations of jurors, and uncertain about the procedures both in the court room and in the jury room. Yet each juror’s undivided attention is essential if the accused Is to be assured of a fair trial. Information about their task is chiefly given to jurors by the presiding judge in the summing-up to the jury. The summing-up is discussed in Chapter 6. Information from other sources may or may not be available. These sources may include:

• information provided when a person is advised of inclusion on a draft jury roll;
• information provided with a summons to attend;
• information provided individually or to the whole jury panel at the court; and
• information provided to the jury once empanelled.

The Commission is conducting research to determine what information jurors desire and me what stage it should be provided. An assessment will also be made of the form in which such information should be provided: written, by means of forms or pamphlets; visual, by means of videos or slides; aural, by means of addresses by the Sheriff or a judge. Information for jurors is currently provided in a rather ad hoc manner.

A. Information Currently Provided

5.3 when jurors are first notified of their inclusion on a draft jury roll they are invited to advise the Sheriff if they are disqualified, ineligible or wish to claim exemption as of right.¹ The three schedules to the Jury Act, 1977 listing people in those categories are set out on the notice. However, people are not advised of the following:

• that a. person who fails to advise the Sheriff that he or she is disqualified or ineligible can be fined;
• the function of jurors and what will be expected of them; or
• that they may seek to be excused from jury service once summoned by applying to the Sheriff.

Our survey of prospective jurors may reveal that other information would also be welcomed by jurors at this stage.

5.4 The Jury Summons is a shorter document advising only the court, the date and the time of attendance and the penalty for failure to attend.² Currently no explanatory information is provided within a summons. Even the number and name of the street where the court is located does not appear on the summons and people are not advised that they may apply to be excused by contacting the Sheriff upon receipt of the summons . Consequently, many people who would have been excused by the Sheriff now miss half a day’s work and travel to the court to make a personal application to the judge. Even when the application is granted the person must be paid for half a day attendance.

5.5 The Sheriff or one of his officers may be able to provide some information, orally, to prospective jurors who ask questions either by telephone prior to the day of attendance or personally con that day. As a general rule the panel is not assembled and given relevant information in a standard form or invited to ask questions. A Sheriff’s officer will usually advise the panel of the estimated length of a case, where it is expected to be substantial, and invite those wishing to be excused to apply personally to the judge.

5.6 Once a Jury has been empanelled, the judge will generally make some introductory remarks. We anticipate that judges vary considerably in the content of these remarks . Our survey of judges will seek to obtain information about judicial practice and their views as to what topics the introductory address should cover.

B. Information Which Should Be Provided

5.7 The Commission considers that more information should be provided on the notification of inclusion on a draft jury roll. one significant omission at present is an explanation in major languages other than English. Such an explanation need merely state: “This is a notification of inclusion on a draft jury roll. If you do not read or understand the English language you are ineligible for jury service. You must notify the Sheriff if you are ineligible for jury service for this, or any other, reason. “ Such a notice would mitigate the chance that a person unable to read or understand English would ignore the notification and would, therefore, not be deleted from the jury roll. Such a person currently risks a penalty for failing to notify the Sheriff of ineligibility and may risk a further penalty for ignoring a summons. If the summons is complied with the person may even be selected for a jury. In paragraph 3.29 we have raised the question whether, in any event, people who speak but do not read English should continue to be ineligible for jury service. ]If this question is ultimately answered in the negative, our proposed notice would be differently worded.

5.8 For the benefit of all recipients the notification could usefully include the following:

• a brief explanation of the nature of jury service;
• advice that a penalty can be imposed for failure to notify the Sheriff of disqualification or ineligibility;
• advice that people not deleted from the jury roll may apply to be excused from jury service upon receipt of a summons.

The Commission also considers that the notification should be assessed and, if necessary, improved by an expert: in effective written communication. The importance of effective communication at this stage should not be under-rated. Accurate completion of the form will give the Sheriff more confidence in the accuracy of the jury roll and will avoid considerable administrative inconvenience at later stages.

5.9 The Jury Summons could also be improved. In particular, it should advise that excusal from jury service is available for “good cause” and that applications should be directed to the Sheriff before the date specified in the summons for attendance. It should further state that applications for excusal may be made in person to the presiding judge at the court on the day specified in the summons. The summons should advise, where it is a summons to attend a jury pool, that- the maximum time one can be kept at a jury pool unless empanelled for, a trial is five days. The provision of information on these matters could make jury service seem much less burdensome because it is a little less uncertain and unknown.

5.10 A carefully prepared and fully informative document in booklet form should be prepared taking into account the results of the Commission’s survey on jurors’ information needs. There are three stages at which this booklet could be made available:

(i) with the notice of inclusion on a draft jury roll;

(ii) separately to all those included on the final jury roll; and

(iii) with the first jury summons.

There are problems with each. If posted with the original notice the are will be an over-coverage of up to 50 per cent. About half those on the draft jury roll are deleted from the Final roll. on the other hand, it could be argued that if more information is provided about jury service, those who are entitled to claim exemption as of right may feel more inclined to serve. If posted at the time the jury roll is finalised the booklet will represent a significant extra expense as the Sheriff does not currently send a further notification that one is included on the final roll. On the other hand, an explanatory document supplied at the commencement of a three year period of liability for jury service would be timely. If posted with the first jury summons, the information in the booklet will be received between two and four weeks before the first period of jury service when the person is perhaps most anxious to obtain information. Whichever option is ultimately favoured, the Commission is firmly of the view that such a booklet should be supplied automatically to everyone called for jury service in the State, and should not be held back to be made available only on request. To this end it should be small enough to make printing and postage economically feasible. The Commission understands that a special committee has been formed by the Chief of Justice of New South Wales to prepare a booklet to meet this need.

5.11 The question of pre-trial information and orientation has recently been considered by the Canadian law Reform Commission. That Commission recognised that prospective jurors can have misconceptions about the nature of their responsibilities, the conduct of trials and common concepts which will be used. These misconceptions must be corrected if the jury is properly to fulfil its functions. The Commission recommended that the orientation process should include three stages. First, a handbook should be distributed with every juror summons, to ensure that uniform information is given to all jurors. Second, all jurors should, at the commencement of their period of service, view a five-to-ten minute slide and audio presentation about jury service and court room procedures. Third, the customary preliminary instructions of the judge to the empanelled jury covering these matters should be mandatory.³ We further consider the subject of the judge’s opening remarks to the jury in Chapter 6.

III. PHYSICAL CONDITIONS

5.12 The physical working conditions of jurors will obviously affect the efficiency and willingness with which they discharge their duties. They will affect concentration, morale and even health. In extreme cases the physical. conditions will. even make the jurors’ task impossible at times, as where traffic noise drowns the voices of witnesses or counsel in the court room. The Commission’s survey will attempt to discover from jurors what conditions disturbed or distracted them and will ask them to offer suggestions for improvement.

5.13 The stress of a criminal trial can be magnified when the conditions for jurors are difficult. In 1983, the New South Wales Law Foundation questioned a number of jurors and invited them to suggest ways in which the working conditions could be improved. One in five respondents offered suggestions including the improvement of seating and air conditioning and the provision of microphones. one in four jurors reported some difficulty in understanding what was going on during the trial. Most of these people attributed their difficulty to problems with acoustics, background noise and/or difficulty in hearing.⁴ The Commission’s own survey of jurors should obtain some information about current working conditions.

5.14 Jurors in New South Wales do not have a right to reasonable refreshment and standard amenities. The Jury Act, 1977 empowers the presiding judge to order that these be provided and they invariably are provided.⁵ Jurors have a right to reasonable refreshment in Canada.⁶ Jurors in New South Wales can be kept together for the entire trial if the judge so determines, although the usual practice is that the jury is permitted to separate at the close of each day’s evidence. Jurors can be kept deliberating for as long as the judge determines although the practice is that where deliberation is likely to be lengthy, the jury is permitted to break off at the end of an afternoon or evening and resume the next morning. Members of the jury are securely accommodated overnight. On the other hand, where a jury informs the judge that it will be likely to render a verdict even quite late at night, the court will generally permit deliberations to continue, holding itself available to receive the verdict at night. This might be preferable to requiring the jury to break off and resume for perhaps only a short time the next day. The Commission considers that the appropriate person to determine these matters is the presiding judge who is charged with balancing the interests of the jury and fairness to the accused. These matters should be left, as at present, in the judge’s discretion, with the possible exception that the Jury Act, 1977 should provide that jurors have a right to reasonable refreshment. This is not, however, a problem in practice so far as we are aware.

5.15 The willingness of citizens to serve on juries will also be affected by the impact of service on their daily lives and work. In New South Wales a typical jury roll continues in force for three years and, in the Sydney jury district, people on the roll can expect to be summoned two or three times in that period. When summoned to a jury panel, a prospective juror must attend the specified court on the specified day and, if chosen for a jury, for each day of the trial thereafter. When summoned to a jury pool the person will be required to attend for a maximum of 5 days unless empanelled on a jury. If empanelled, a juror’s service until be complete when that jury is discharged.⁷ This procedure may be contrasted with the South Australian procedure (similar to that in many states of the United States) of requiring the one pool of prospective jurors to be available for selection on Juries for an entire month.⁸ Thus any juror may, in his or her month of service, try two or more criminal cases. Despite submissions that a month of service was onerous and that experienced jurors may become cynical and less receptive to the defence position, the Criminal Law and Penal Methods Reform Committee of South Australia did not recommend any changes to the organisation of juror availability. The Committee doubted the strength of the arguments put and noted certain advantages of the South Australian procedure. These include savings in administrative time and expense and the Likelihood that after a month of service a juror would be unlikely ever to be required again.⁹ The Law Reform Commission of Canada, on the other hand, has stated:

Short jury terms make it possible for more people to serve on juries and minimizes the personal disruption of jury service. It should mean that most people would be able to serve without fear of undue economic hardship. Thus, the jury would be more representative of the community and the burden or jury duty more equitably distributed. Another benefit would be that more people would be exposed to the jury system and would thereby gain an increased appreciation of judicial administration.¹⁰

The Commission considers that the current procedures in New South Wales work to the best advantage of prospective jurors and of accused people. They are also, arguably, more cost-efficient than the South Australian option because they do not result in large numbers of people being required to make themselves available for lengthy periods.

5.16 Since hardship may result more readily from lengthy service than from a short period of duty, prospective jurors should be told of the anticipated length of a trial in order that they can apply to be excused by reason of hardship by the judge.¹¹ In an English Practice Direction in 1981, Lord Chief Justice Lane directed judges in civil cases to “enquire of prospective jurors whether they will suffer inconvenience or hardship by having to serve for the estimated length of the trial and excuse those who will be so affected.”¹² In New South Wales it is the practice for Sheriff’s Officers and sometimes for judges, to advise the panel of the anticipated length of the trial and to invite applications for excusal. The Commission considers that all judges should make such an enquiry. Where the length of a trial causes hardship to arise a serving juror may seek to be discharged before giving a verdict. in R. v. Hambery¹³ the trial judge discharged one juror who was due to go away on a holiday. Again, jurors are more likely to become ill, or even to die, in the course of a lengthy trial. There is also a greater risk of a juror suffering a bereavement.¹⁴ A trial may continue uninterrupted with a reduced complement of jurors. The presiding judge may order that the trial is to continue with only eleven or ten jurors. If the number is reduced further, the written consent of both the Crown and the accused is required before the trial may continue.¹⁵ However, it is clearly in the interests of justice to all concerned that the continuing availability of all jurors be assured, as far as is possible, before the jury is empanelled. Thus, counsel should be in a position to advise the court of the likely duration of” the trial. Judges and coroners are empowered, in New South Wales, upon discharging jurors after a lengthy trial, to direct that the jurors should be exempt from further service for a specified period, even permanently.¹⁶

5.17 Although jurors are now permitted to separate and return home at the close of each day’s evidence, they still may not separate during deliberation.¹⁷ Communication with members of the public at this time is strictly forbidden.¹⁸ This rule can be onerous when a jury must be accommodated overnight. In a long trial the jury may need to deliberate for some days. During this time jurors are not only unable to return home but may not communicate with family and friends. The reason for the rule is that it ensures the verdict is a result of the deliberations of the twelve (or fewer) who heard the evidence, addresses and summing-up and is influenced to chance conversations or information obtained from the media. The Commission invites submissions as to whether the isolation of the jury during its deliberations is, still necessary and desirable, particularly in a lengthy case.

IV. COMPENSATION

A. Jury Fees

5.18 Jurors in New South Wales receive payment on a sliding scale. The amounts were increased each year between 1977 and 1982, and again early in 1985. A juror who is required for less than four hours on only one day currently receives $23.00. A juror required for a longer period on the first day is entitled to $46.00. A juror required for a full week will receive $46.00 for each of the first three days and $47.00 each for days four and five, where after the daily fee continues to increase on a sliding scale.¹⁹ In South Australia, by way of contrast, a flat rate applies subject to the possibility of an increase up to a ceiling where a particular juror establishes that he or she receives a daily wage greater than the basic rate. The Criminal Law and Penal Methods Reform Committee of South Australia felt that the rates were inadequate for employed people. That Committee recommended that the minimum rate of pay for jurors should be adjusted with variations in the basic wage and that where a juror’s average daily rate of pay exceeds the amount fixed as the minimum jury fee, the amount he or she receives should be increased to that daily rate of pay.²⁰

5.19 Some attention has also recently been given to jury fees in Canada. The Law Reform Commission of Saskatchewan has noted:

As a general principle, jury service should not be a money-making proposition. But neither should it involve jurors having to forego their regular income. To date, juror compensation by the province has been changed on a haphazard, ad hoc basis. Jury service is an important civic responsibility. As such, it seems reasonable that every juror should receive hourly compensation at the provincial hourly minimum wage.²¹

Because many employers, either by virtue of award provisions or voluntarily, continue to pay employees performing jury service, the Commission further recommended that “jurors who continue in receipt of a salary or wages would by force of the legislation be compelled to assign their juror earnings to their employers”.²²

5.20 In a recent working paper, the Law Reform Commission of Canada stated:

Ideally then, jury fees should ensure that jury service in no way disrupts a person’s ordinary earnings, that no one receives a windfall while serving on the jury, and that jurors are treated as equals.²³

Making very similar recommendations to those made by the Law Reform Commission of Saskatchewan, the Canadian Commission made the following points:

• if the fees are too low jury service will impose an undue economic burden on many jurors or make it difficult to obtain a jury that represents a true cross-section of the community;
• jurors who are required to endure economic hardship are perhaps more likely to be dissatisfied with their experience and, as a result, to discharge their functions less responsibly; and
• the fees should not underline the socio-economic class differences of jurors. It is important that during jury service they regard one another in all respects as equals.²⁴

5.21 In the United States there has been some debate do to the effect of jury payments on juror satisfaction and willingness to serve. Pabst, Munsterman and Mount’s study of jurors who had completed a period of jury service found that 90 per cent were -Favourably impressed with jury duty and that neither having lost money nor the amount of the jury fee, which varied from $US3.00 to $US20.00 per day, affected the favourable attitude.²⁵ Richert, on the other hand, argued that the high rate of applications for excusal (about 50 per cent of those summoned in one eleven-month period by a New Jersey court) is likely to be at least influenced by the amount of payment offered. He noted that 20 per cent of those seeking excusal in the Nets Jersey study were concerned about financial loss. A further study, of jurors who had actually attended, showed that 81 per cent considered the fee inadequate even though most of them (75 per cent) did not suffer financially When asked how jury duty could be improved, 31.4 per cent recommended an increase in the fee.²⁶

5.22 The Commission’s own survey of jurors will attempt to discover whether jurors consider current fee levels in New South Wales to be satisfactory. Our current view is that the fees are too low and should be raised to the level of average weekly earnings for adult males in full-time employment in the State: currently $87.10 per day. While some people, for example those receiving unemployment benefits, would obtain a windfall from serving, the Commission considers that the jury fee should be determined by reference only to the value of the work done. The jury fee should be seen as payment for performing jury service and not in any way as compensation for lost earnings or profits. We do not consider, however, that jurors who continue to receive a wage or salary while they are performing jury service should also receive the jury fee. Where an employer is willing to support an employee on jury duty, that employee should not be entitled to claim the jury fee. The claim form should require each claimant to certify that he or she has not, and will not, receive a normal salary for the period of jury service.

5.23 Because the jury fee. should be payment for work done, there should be, no additional compensating measure for those actually suffering greater financial loss. We note that sole business operators are usually excused from jury service on their application and consider that others likely to suffer serious financial hardship should have the responsibility for drawing this to the judge’s attention when seeking to be excused. Therefore, we would not consider appropriate the implementation in New South Wales of the Queensland procedure for making applications for ex gratia compensation for, financial losses over and above the jury fees.²⁷

B. Travelling Expenses

5.24 The travelling expenses of jurors in New South Wales are calculated according to the distance of the juror’s residence from the court. From 1977 until the beginning of 1985 the rate was eight cents per kilometre travelled.²⁸ In February 1985 the rate was increased to 10 cents per kilometre.²⁹ The Law Reform Commission of Manitoba has recommended that the mileage rate paid to jurors should be the equivalent of that paid to civil servants and others travelling on government business.³⁰ In New South Wales, such a rate could be paid to all jurors, irrespective of their actual method of travel, or only to those driving to court. Consideration could be given to providing free parking for jurors at city and metropolitan courts. For those without cars, consideration could be given to paying their taxi fares. Alternatively, in the metropolitan area, free travel by public transport could be arranged. A special juror’s travel card could be posted with the Jury Summons, stamped with the first date on which attendance is required. The card could be renewed, or stamped with further dates, if necessary, by the Sheriff.

5.25 The ease with which people can travel to and from court will not only affect their attitudes to jury service. It can determine whether they make themselves available or not, Preliminary research by the Commission suggests, for example, that in Sydney’s western districts, where the public transport service is poor, the Sheriff has deleted people from the jury roll on the basis of claims that travelling will be difficult. The Commission considers that, if travelling expenses are to be paid at all, they should be realistic. At the same time, we see virtue in the argument that, if the jury fee is raised to the male average weekly earnings, the cost of travelling should be paid by the juror from the jury fee. That fee would then be more readily recognisable as payment for work done, and it is arguable that transport to and from the place of work should be borne by the juror himself or herself.

C. Personal Injury Compensation

5.26 Jurors are not covered by workers’ compensation while attending court for jury service.³¹ A juror injured in court or in traffic on the way to court can only apply to the Attorney General for an ex gratia payment and is not entitled to full and adequate compensation. Only in Victoria has a statutory right to compensation for personal injury been created. for juror’ s entitlements are the same as under the workers’ compensation provisions: the juror will be compensated if he or she was injured while attending court in answer to a summons, while temporarily absent with the court’s permission, or while travelling to or from court. The benefits payable are the same as those payable under the Workers’ Compensation Act and compensation for jurors is administered by the Workers Compensation Board. A juror’ s compensation is paid direct from Consolidated Revenue.³² The Commission proposes that similar, legislative provision should be made in New South Wales.

V. PERSONAL SECURITY

5.27 While citizens who acknowledge the civic importance of jury service may be willing to put up with interruption and inconvenience, and even a degree of discomfort, during the period of jury service, few would accept that continuing ill-effects should be tolerated. A juror should, upon discharge, return two anonymity, with the ramifications of the period of service and the verdict reached making little impression ton his or her ordinary life beyond a feeling of satisfaction in having done an onerous task well. and of having learnt about and participated in an important social process. Thus, in a number of ways, the jury system seeks to protect jurors from continuing interference.

5.28 Jurors are, to a large degree, anonymous. Their full names are read out in court for the purpose of calling them into the jury box. We have suggested in Chapter 4 that surnames only would suffice (paragraph 4.22). Once sworn, the jurors are not again referred to publicly by name but only as “members of the jury”. Counsel are prohibited from communicating with jurors once at trial has finished as this would be an intrusion on the anonymity to which jurors are entitled.³³ It is an offence in New South Wales to “publish or print any material or broadcast or televise any matter of such a nature that a person may thereby be informed, whether by implication or otherwise, of the identity or address of any juror”.³⁴ The terms of this provision do not confine the prohibition to the duration of the trial. However, it is suggested that the section should be amended to more clearly prohibit all publication, even once the trial is concluded.

5.29 In Australia it has been held to be undesirable for a newspaper to publish accounts of the observations of a juror in relation to a recently concluded trial.³⁵ The Law Reform Commission of Canada, on the other hand, has recommended that publications of this type should be permitted and that jurors ought to be able to be identified if they consent.³⁶ No similar protection would appear to apply in the United States. An article in The American Lawyer, which appeared a few months after the completion of a notorious libel action against the Washington Post newspaper, traced the progress of jury room discussion, attributing views and statements to several named jurors and holding the foreman up to ridicule as well as to, perhaps justified, criticism.³⁷ It can be argued that the offence of publication should not apply where the juror consents in writing to being identified. We invite submissions as to whether and in what circumstances publication of jurors’ identities should be permitted. We discuss the broader issue of the publication of details about a jury’s deliberations in Chapter 8.

5.30 The law of contempt and the Jury Act, 1977 do attempt to protect the physical security of jurors. It is contempt of court to use or threaten violence, or even to’ use threatening or abusive language, in or near the courts to a juror, and such an offence will be dealt with summarily upon a complaint being made.³⁸ A juror’s safety may be threatened by an approach designed to “corruptly influence” the juror, an offence known as embracery for which the penalty on indictment in New South Wales is seven years imprisonment.³⁹ Where a juror has been threatened, he or she may be discharged upon advising the court of the threat.⁴⁰ Fear of consequences may be considered a valid reason for excusing a prospective juror from service.⁴¹

5.31 The Jury Act, 1977 also protects jurors in their employment. it is an offence in. New South Wales for an employer to dismiss an employee or to injure the employee in his or her employment or to alter the employee’s position to his or her prejudice by reason of the fact that the employee is summoned It serves as a juror. The onus of proof is on the employer to prove that the employee’s jury service was not the cause of the dismissal. Upon conviction, an employer can be ordered to reimburse the employee for lost wages and to reinstate the employee.⁴² In 1980 the Law Reform Commission of Canada recommended that similar provisions should apply in that country.⁴³

VI. TENTATIVE PROPOSALS

5.32 The jury system, though essentially a device of the criminal justice system designed to provide a fair, trial to accused people, recognises both that this fairness is dependent on the provision of satisfactory conditions for jurors and that the public acceptability of “juries largely depends on fair treatment being extended to jurors. The Commission considers that the conditions of service for jurors can be improved in a number of ways, and would, therefore, propose the following.

1. The Notification of Inclusion on a Draft Jury Roll should:

(a) include an explanation in major languages other than English as to the import of the Notification;

(b) advise that people unable to read or understand English are ineligible for jury service;

(c) include a brief explanation of the nature of jury service;

(d) advise recipients that a penalty can be imposed for failure to respond as and where appropriate; and

(e) advise recipients that the Sheriff has a discretion to excuse people from jury service for good cause (paragraphs 5.7-5.8).

2. The Jury Summons should:

(a) advise recipients that applications to be excused may be made to the Sheriff;

(b) advise recipients that applications to be excused may be made in person to the presiding judge on the day on which attendance is required (paragraph 5.9).

3. An Explanatory Booklet should be prepared and distributed to every person summoned for jury service. This Booklet should discuss the nature of a juror’s responsibilities, the jury’s role, the conduct of trials and explain common concepts which will be used (paragraph 5.10).

4. The Jury Act, 1977 should, for the sake of certainty, be amended to provide that jurors have a right to be provided with reasonable refreshment and standard amenities during adjournments of a trial (paragraph 5.14).

5. The presiding judge should advise the jury panel as to the estimated length of the trial and should excuse those who apply to be excused because they would be likely to be adversely affected if required for that period (paragraph 5.16).

6. Jury fees should be raised to the level of male average weekly earnings. Jurors who continue to receive a wage or salary while performing jury duty should not be entitled to claim the jury fee (paragraph 5.22).

7. Jurors should be entitled to claim compensation for personal injury sustained during a period of jury service in the same way and on the same basis as claims can be made under the Workers’ Compensation Act, 1926 (paragraph 5.26).

5.33 This Chapter has raised certain other issues for discussion. They are:

• whether a videotaped film explaining the jury’s role, court procedures and common concepts used in criminal trials should be shown to prospective jurors before any jury is empanelled (paragraph 5.11);
• whether the jury should be permitted to separate after it has been charged to consider its verdict (paragraph 5.17);
• whether travelling expenses should be paid to jurors and, if so, what form they should take (paragraph 5.25); and
• whether publication of jurors’ identities should be permitted and, if so, in what circumstances (paragraph 5.29).

FOOTNOTES

1. Jury Regulation No.191 of 1977, schedule 2, Form 1.

2. Id., Form 3.

3. Law Reform Commission of Canada, The :Jury in Criminal Trials (Working Paper 27, 1980), at pp.69-73.

4. P. Grabosky and C. Rizzo, Jurors in New South Wales (Law Foundation of New South Wales, 1983), at pp.10,13.

5. Jury Act, 1977, s.55.

6. Criminal Code 1970 (Canada), s.576(5).

7. Jury Act, 1977, ss.24(3), 35.

8. Juries Act 1927 (S.A.), s.29.

9. Court Procedure and Evidence (Third Report, 1975), at PP.109-110.

10. The Jury in Criminal Trials (Working Paper 27, 1980), at p.66.

11. Jury Act, 1977, s.38(1)(b).

12. Reproduced [1981] C.L.Y. para.1483.

13. [1977] 3 ALL E.R. 561.

14. In R v. Tortomano [1979] V.R. 31 the judge discharged a juror whose wife had attempted suicide and was in hospital. In R. v. Richardson [1975] 3 All E. R. 247 the judge discharged a juror whose husband had died suddenly. In each case the trial continued with eleven jurors.

15. Jury Act, 1977, s.22(a).

16. Id., s.39(1).

17. Id., s.54.

18. R. v. Furlong (1950) 34 Cr.App. R. 79; Fanshawe v.Knowles [1916] 2 K.B. 538.

19. Jury Regulation 22 February 1985.

20. Criminal Law and Penal Methods Reform Committee of South Australia, Court Procedure and Evidence (Third Report, 1975), at pp.94-95. See now Juries Act 1927-1984 (S.A.), s.70.

21. Proposals for Reform of the Jury Act (1979), at p.7.

22. Id., at p.8.

23. Law Reform Commission of Canada, The Jury in Criminal Trials (Working Paper 27, 1980), at p.67.

24. Ibid.

25. W.R. Pabst, G.T. Munsterman and C.H. Mount, “The myth of the unwilling juror” (1976) 60(4) Judicature 164.

26. J.P. Richert, “A new verdict on juror willingness” (1977) 60(10) Judicature 497.

27. Jury Act, 1929 (Qld.), s.21B,

28. Jury Regulation 24 September 1982.

29. Jury Regulation 22 February 1985.

30. Law Reform Commission of Manitoba, The Administration of Justice in Manitoba: Part II: A Review of the Jury System (Report 19,1975), at p.53.

31. Workers’ Compensation Act, 1926, s.7.

32. Juries Act 1967 (Vic.), Part VII, ss.59, 64.

33. Prothonotary v. Jackson [1976] 2 N.S.W.L.R. 457.

34. Jury Act, 1977, s .68. See also Juries Act 1957 (W.A.), s.57; Juries Act 1967 (Vic.), s.69.

35. Re Matthews and Ford [1973] V.R. 199.

36. Law Reform Commission of Canada, The Jury (Report 16, 1982), at p.53.

37. S. Brill, “Inside the Jury Room at the Washington Post Libel Trial”, The American Lawyer November 1982, at p.1.

38. Halsbury’s Laws of England (4th ed.), Vol.26, para.654.

39. Jury Act, 1977, s.67.

40. R. v. Stretton and Storey [1982] V.R. 251. Compare Antonio Zampaglione and Others (1982) 6 A.Crim.R. 287 where it, was held that a threatening telephone call had not been shown to have influenced the juror; and R. v. Boland [1974] V.R. 849 where it was held that, partly due to the length of the trial, the judge had been right to refuse to discharge a juror who had been promised money for voting for a conviction.

41. A .Jennings and D. Wolchover, “Northern Ireland: Star Chamber versus the Gang of Twelve - I” (1984) New Law Journal 659, at p.660.

42. Jury Act, 1977, s.69.

43. Law Reform Commission of Canada, The Jury in Criminal Trials (Working Paper 27, 1980), at pp.63-65