1.1 This is the Sixth Report in the Community Law Reform Program. The Program was established by the then Attorney General, the Hon F.J. Walker, Q.C., M.P., by letter dated 24 May 1982 addressed to the Chairman of the Commission. The letter included the following statement:
This letter may therefore be taken as an authority to the Commission in its discretion to give preliminary consideration to proposals for law reform made to it by members of the legal profession and the community at large. The purpose of preliminary consideration will be to bring to my attention matters that warrant my making a reference to the Commission under s.10 of the Law Reform Commission Act, 1967.
1.2 In May 1983 the Commission received a letter from a member of the community who objects to serving on a jury for reasons of conscience. She complained about the procedures involved in being excused from jury service on the ground of her conscientious beliefs, stating that they demeaned her beliefs. She suggested that the conscientious beliefs of each individual should be respected by the law.
1.3 The Commission undertook preliminary research on the matters raised by our correspondent as part of the Community Law Reform Program. We examined the law and practice with respect to juries in New South Wales as well as in other Australian States, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. As a result of these preliminary investigations and discussions with the Sheriff of New South Wales, Mr. G.F. Hanson, we discovered that the matter raised by our correspondent poses problems for a significant number of people. In particular, the Christadelphian community in New South Wales has, in recent years, repeatedly asked the State Government for exemption from jury service. On each occasion the Attorney General has replied to petitions by noting the right of all people summoned to perform jury service to seek to be excused by the presiding judge. In successive submissions Christadelphian committees have stated that the existing procedures cause them a degree of disruption and distress. We describe these procedures in the following Chapter.
1.4 Following our preliminary examination we formed the tentative view that current procedures in New South Wales for considering the claims of conscientious objectors to jury service to be exempt from that service are inadequate. The preliminary examination suggested two main policy questions. Should the Jury Act, 1977 make explicit provision for the exemption of conscientious objectors to jury service? If so, what procedures should be used to deal with applications for such exemption? We advised the Attorney General of our views and he formally made a reference to the Commission on 17 February 1984. The reference requires the Commission to inquire and report on the following:
1.5 The Commission invited a number of organisations and individuals to make submissions to us on this reference. Although the time available was short, the response was high and submissions were thoughtful and very helpful. A list of those who made submissions is included as the Appendix. We have also been assisted by the Sheriffs of each Australian State, of the Northern Territory and of New Zealand, by the Electoral Commissioner of New South Wales, and by the Deputy Industrial Registrar of New South Wales.
1.6 We are aware that a number of inquiries into the jury system have been conducted in the United Kingdom Canada and elsewhere in Australia. Between 1963-1965, the United Kingdom Departmental Committee on jury Service, chaired by Lord Morris, extensively reviewed the use of juries, the qualifications for jury service, the administrative machinery and the provisions made for jurors at court.1 The United Kingdom Criminal Law Revision Committee has produced two related reports. The first, in 1964, examined jurors in the context of criminal procedure.2 The second concerned the secrecy of the jury room.3 The Law Reform Commission of Manitoba, Canada, reviewed the jury system as part of its report on the administration of justice in 1975.4 This was followed by the report on juries by the Law Reform Commission of Saskatchewan in 1979.5 In 1980 the Law Reform Commission of Canada produced a working paper on the jury in criminal trials6 and reported on the subject in 1982.7 In Australia, two States have examined their jury systems in recent years. The South Australian Criminal Law and Penal Methods Reform Committee considered some issues with respect to juries in its 1975 report on procedure and evidence.8 The Law Reform Commission of Western Australia specifically examined exemption from jury service during 1978-1980.9 Although few of these reports deal specifically with the issue of conscientious objection to jury service, we have found them of considerable assistance.10
FOOTNOTES
1. Report of the Departmental Committee on Jury Service (U.K., 1965).
2. Criminal Law Revision Committee, Criminal Procedure (Jurors) (U.K., 1964).
3. Criminal Law Revision Committee, Secrecy of the Jury Room (U.K., 1968).
4. Law Reform Commission of Manitoba. Report on Administration of Justice in Manitoba: Part II: A Review of the Jury System (Report No. 19, 1975).
5. Law Reform Commission of Saskatchewan Proposals for Reform of the Jury Act (1979).
6. Law Reform Commission of Canada, The Jury in Criminal Trials (Working Paper 27, 1980).
7. Law Reform Commission of Canada, The Jury (Report 16, 1982).
8. Criminal Law and Penal Methods Reform Committee of South Australia, Court Procedure and Evidence (Third Report 1975).
9. Law Reform Commission of Western Australia, Exemption from Jury Service (Working Paper, 1978 and Report, 1980).
10. Two of the reports deal with objection on religious grounds: see note 5. p.7 and note 6, p.43. Two deal with the broader concept of conscientious belief on religious and non-religious grounds: see note 1, para.153 and note 4, p.24.
