« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
CHAPTER 6: EXEMPTION PERIODS
The consultation stated:
In the interests of widening the pool of available jurors without increasing burdens on those who have already served on a jury, the Government proposes to reduce, from 5 years to 2 years, the exemption period for individuals who attend court but are not subsequently balloted to sit on a jury. The Government intends to bring forward legislation to implement this. It does not propose to change the exemption period of 5 years routinely granted to those who actually serve on a jury.
The consultation asked:
Q6: DO YOU AGREE WITH THE PROPOSAL TO REDUCE THE PERIOD OF ENTITLEMENT TO EXCUSAL AS OF RIGHT FROM 5 TO 2 YEARS FOR THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO, FOLLOWING CITATION, ATTEND AT COURT BUT ARE NOT SELECTED BY BALLOT TO SERVE ON A JURY?
Twenty-four consultees (41%) responded to this question. The vast majority of these (79%) agreed with the proposal, only 4 (17%) disagreed, and one respondent provided commentary only.
In the few cases where respondents added commentary to support their agreement with the proposal, a common remark was that this would serve to increase the juror pool. One suggestion was that potential jurors who attended court but were not selected by ballot could opt into a reduced entitlement to excusal (Leg). One consultee remarked that reliable information systems need to be put in place to accommodate this reduction in excusal period (Leg). Another view was that a reduction to 2 years seemed appropriate in that it acknowledged the inconvenience which such potential jurors had experienced, but recognised that they had not faced the stress of the actual trial which could be onerous (Oth Rep).
One consultee disagreed with this sentiment, arguing that as those who are cited for jury service but not subsequently selected undergo as much trouble as other potential jurors, and may spend as much time in court as jurors who are chosen for a short trial, they should be entitled to an excusal period of 5 years (Pub). Another commented that as an employer, the reduction from 5 years to 2 years could impact negatively on their ability to fulfil their statutory duties as an employer and maintain the level of service they currently offered to their clients (Oth Bod).
The consultation asked:
Q7: DO YOU AGREE THAT SECTION 84(4) OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND)ACT 1995 BE AMENDED TO ALLOW FOR THE POOL OF JURORS TO BE SELECTED FROM THOSE EITHER WITHIN THE SHERIFF COURT DISTRICT OR THE SHERIFFDOM AS A WHOLE?
Twenty-two consultees (37%) responded to this question. Again, most (77%) agreed with the proposition, with only 2 (9%) disagreeing, and 3 (14%) providing commentary only.
Some of those who supported the change confirmed that they agreed with the rationale for the amendment set out in the consultation document, although one cautioned that there may be difficulties in its application in particularly large Sheriffdoms such as Grampian, Highland and Islands. One consultee (Leg) argued that it was important for justice to be seen to be done in localities where the crimes had actually been committed, and more provision should be made for this by COPFS and SCS. This respondent also remarked that local trials would reduce the need for people to serve as jurors outwith their home districts.
Those providing commentary and/or disagreeing with the proposal considered that the disadvantages of potential extra time and costs which would be incurred by some jurors in travelling longer distances to court would outweigh the benefits of a larger juror pool.
SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS
- The vast majority (79%) of those who provided a view agreed with the proposal to reduce the period of entitlement to excusal as of right from 5 to 2 years for those individuals who, following citation, attend at court but are not selected by ballot to serve on a jury.
- A common view was that reducing the period of entitlement would help to increase the juror pool.
- Most (77%) of those who commented agreed that the law should be amended to allow for the pool of jurors to be selected from those either within the sheriff court district or the sheriffdom as a whole.
« Previous | Contents | Next »