JURYMEN’S FEES

Dominion, Volume 31, Issue 42, 13 November 1937, Page 10

JURYMEN’S FEES

Not Intended To Be Full Compensation SERVICE TO COUNTRY Auckland jurymen recently protested against the rates of remuneration fixed by statute, which, they said, they regarded as ina'dequate. Inquiries at the head office of the Department of Justice, in Wellington, elicited the information that common jurors were paid on a basis of half a guinea a day as a flat rate. Common jurors in either civil or criminal sittings or coroners’ inquests were paid 10/6 for attendance of more than three hours, or 5/- for half a day—less than three hours. This fee was earned whether or not they sat for the full three hours; they might be dismissed after no more than a few minutes’ attendance. They received also their travelling expenses if they lived more than three miles from the court. .Special jurors, empanelled to deal with cases of particular technical difficulty or needing specialised knowledge received £1 for the first day’s sitting, an'd 10/- a day thereafter. In cases, such as murder trials, lasting for some days, where the jury had to be kept together and where they were taken out to football matches or cinemas, the Crown paid the expenses. In the same way, in all cases where it was necessary to keep them together and they were taken out for meals, the bill was paid by the Crown. Payment of jurors was slightly higher than that of witnesses, who received 8/- a day. or 4/- a half-day, and 3/6 extra if they were obliged to stay away from home overnight. These payments were intended to cover meals and hotel bills, the total amount allowed for a whole day and night being 11/6. Expert witnesses were granted £1 for attendance, and medical men giving professional evidence were regarded as expert witnesses. Witnesses also were given travel allowances. It was pointed out that, in the case of jurymen at any rate, they were giving their time as a service to their country, and the object of the remuneration’was to prevent them from being heavily out of pocket rather than adequately to compensate them for their loss of wages while attending the court.