Judge recommends higher payments to jurors

Press, Volume CXIV, Issue 33477, 7 March 1974, Page 2

Judge recommends higher payments to jurors

f CN Z. Press Association) I AUCKLAND. March 6. ■) Mr Justice McMullin . —obviously with rising r living costs in mind — took the unusual step ’ this week of recom- - mending that earning 1 jurors on a panel be ; granted additional payments to avoid possible s financial hardship. The Secretary of Justice ■ (Mr E. A. Missen) said today 1 that he thought this was the 1 first time a judge had made - such a recommendation. r It was a matter usually “.left to the court registrars, t he said. Mr Justice McMullin’s . recommendation was made, in the broad sense, for all earning members of one narticular iurv. 1 It had been pointed out • that some members of the ; I jury would be forfeiting I their normal pay. t His Honour said the trial - could last for three weeks. . and that living on a juror’s i,

I fee could be a hardship for? [some people. Mr Justice McMullin recommended that the jurors be paid their normal earnings, to a maximum of $75 a week. ; GROWING CONCERN The judge’s recommendation reflects a growing concern in legal circles about jurors’ fees. The fees were last set in 1969. when, on a five-dav juryman week, they amounted to about 75 per cent of what was then the ' average wage, with overtime ($46). Today, the loss to a workingman juror can be heavy, ! especially on a long trial. The average New Zealand wage being paid in mid-1973 ' was $71.75 (including $8.75 ; overtime and bonuses). It is. I thought to have risen at i least 8 per cent since. Under the 1969 jurors’ fees i Tsi'iations. the juror who works more than a three- 1 hour day is paid a fee of i $6.50 a day, rising to $7.25 i. if a judge fails to direct the.i sheriff to provide an evening ii meal. I On a five-day week, a juror can expect to be paid,;

a fee of $32.50 (plus $3.75 for evening meals, if necessary). before tax is taken off. That amounts to considerably less than half the average pay. . , The basis for the Judge s recommendation was also unusual, and indicated the different ways of regarding jurors’ fees. Mr Missen, who has to approve the additional payments recommended by Mr Justice McMullin, said most such recommendations were made on the basis of a loss to be suffered because of jury iservice. NOT COMPENSATION This did not include the loss of normal wages. It tended to be for losses such as overtime which an employee might have worked, or the loss of extra work which a self-employed tradesman might have won. The juryman’s service was traditionally seen as a public service, Mr Missen said. The Justice Department had never looked upon jurors’ fees as direct compensation for the loss of normal wages. This view is also held by >a number of lawyers.

51 On the other hand, many - lawyers argue that while a ; juror cannot always expect - to be fully recompensed for - his service, the fee should at least make sure that a juror s and his family are not put o to hardship, or serious incone venience. ’ RELUCTANT JURORS , As evidence of the need to increase fees, they point to r what appears to be a growt ing reluctance by working e men to sit on juries for long s trials. y: The only expenses allowable to jurors under the regulations are travelling expenses. t On these, the juror is * allowed the cost of public _ transport to and from the court or, where the registrar '• sees fit, the price of a taxi < fare. Where no public conveys ance is available, and the disc tance to be travelled exceeds s two miles, the juror is paid j9c for each mile. ;’ The fees are paid regardi less of whether a juror’s em- .. ployer continues to pay his y wages. P.A.Y.E. tax is i deducted by the department.