Warning on jury lists

Press, 4 March 1983, Page 6

Warning on jury lists

PA Wellington A warning intended to maintain public confidence in the jury system was given by the Minister of Justice. Mr McLay. vesterdav.

Mr McLay said he might introduce a law stopping the early availability of jury lists if there were'more attempts to canvass the views of prospective jurors.

He warned that people who conducted "market research" on a potential juror risked having their approach interpreted as a criminal offence.

The comments follow up the cancelling of a trial of Springbok tour protesters in Auckland this week because jurors had been questioned on their opinions a few days before the case was to start. The Minister said he accepted for the moment that the motive in the Auckland case “was merely to find out attitudes, rather than influence people."

The concern was that it could be inferred that the

jury had been influenced and in some particular instances, jurors might be influenced. Mr McLay said the normal checking of a jury list was a legitimate practice, with lawyers inquiring of their client, colleagues, and other people about what was known of people on jury lists. "The inquiries must stop well short of making a direct approach to the individual." he said.

While there was no "legal injunction" against approaches being made to jurors, there was a very real danger that the approach could be interpreted as an attempt to influence that person’s judgment.

Lists went out early to allow both the prosecution and defence to consider whom they wanted to challenge when jurors were selected. “That way you can exclude from a jury persons who might have a personal knowledge of the case, or personal

knowledge of the individuals in it." Mr McLay said.

Suggestions-had been made previously that jury members had’been approached. Mr McLay noted that other countries, including Australia, restricted the availability of jury lists until the morning of a trial, partly to prevent threats against jurors.

Any widespread indication of canvassing of jurors would lead to his giving "very serious consideration" to a similar system in New Zealand.

“My concern and responsibility are to ensure that there is public confidence in the jury system and that the public know that juries are in fact drawn very largely at random, subject only to the rights of challenge, from ordinary members of the public who have no particular knowledge of. or interest in. the case before the court." Mr McLav said.

The maximum penalty for

attempting to influence, or influencing, a juror is seven vears’ imprisonment. Mr McLay was not saying jurors had been influenced in the Auckland case, and could not say if prosecutions would result.

The Auckland trial is the last from the tour protests. Mr McLay said it was set down to take three weeks, and the next earliest date available for that was August.

A Wellington lawyer. Mr M. A. Bungay, has suggested that if canvassing of jurors became common practice, majority verdicts might be a convenient solution. While it might be possible for one or two jurors to be influenced during canvassing, it was unlikely that as many as three jurors could be influenced.

Mr McLay said this had never seriously been considered in New Zealand." certainly not at a Parliamentary level."