In the Consultation Paper the Commission provisionally recommended that there should not be a system in which jurors are paid by the State for their services,549 and that the current system under section 29 of the 1976 Act of payment for jury service by employers should be retained.550 The Commission invited submissions on whether a limited form of expenses should be paid to jurors to cover costs directly incurred by virtue of their participation in the jury system.551
The Consultation Paper noted the possibility that tax credits for self-employed jurors could be used to alleviate the financial burden endured by those individuals and invited submissions on this point.552 Submissions were also invited on the possibility of using insurance as a means of protecting employers and the self-employed from losses incurred: insurance policies of this type would pay salaries or wages for the time that a policyholder is off work while on jury service.553
The submissions received by the Commission noted the importance of a system of compensation for jury service. A number of submissions emphasised the challenges posed to small businesses and the self-employed by jury service and suggested that the only just solution would be for the State to pay juror compensation. Others suggested that the financial burden of jury service should not be placed on employers generally as it is essentially a function performed by their employees that benefits the justice system and, as such, the costs should be borne by the State. It was generally agreed that incurring of expenses by jurors was undesirable, particularly if the State is interested in improving the public perception of the duty. Consultees differed on whether the implementation of a system of expenses should to be flat rate or vouched.
The Commission recognises the argument that jury service benefits the justice system, and as such at least some costs should be borne by the State. However, the introduction of a system of payment by the State for jury service would not be consistent with the concept that jury service is a civic duty rather than a right, any more than payment for voting would be acceptable. The Commission considers that a secondary factor is that such a system would require significant additional funding which the Commission recognises would be difficult to justify in the current economic climate. It would also involve the creation, delivery and management of a complex system that would have to take account of the many different circumstances of persons selected for jury service.
The Commission nonetheless recognises the annoyance, and sometimes hardship, that even minor additional expenses can cause to persons who are called for jury service. The Commission has therefore concluded that a limited system should be introduced to cover the cost of transport and other incidentals involved in jury service. This could be achieved by setting a modest flat rate daily payment, which could be administered without re requirement of significant additional administrative costs for the Courts Service which currently administers a lunch voucher system for jurors. The Commission does not consider that flat rate payments would present a significant financial burden to the State and that it would represent a modest encouragement to wider participation in the jury process.
The Commission accepts that this recommended modest daily payment is unlikely to offset the financial burden placed on certain persons, notably small businesses and the self-employed, who are prepared to take up jury service. The Commission therefore recommends that consideration be given by the Government (notably, the Department of Finance, the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, and the Department of Justice and Equality) as to what other means could be used to alleviate the financial burden that jury service involves for small businesses and self-employed persons, including the use of tax credits and insurance.
The Commission recommends the introduction of a modest flat rate daily payment to cover the cost of transport and other incidentals involved in jury service. The Commission also recommends that consideration be given by the Government (notably, the Department of Finance, the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, and the Department of Justice and Equality) as to what other means could be used to alleviate the financial burden that jury service involves for small businesses and self-employed persons, including the use of tax credits and insurance.
In this Chapter the Commission examines the challenges posed for jurors in complex or lengthy trials where they are presented with information such as DNA evidence in a murder trial or financial information in a fraud trial. Allied to the complexity of the information presented is that such trials may also extend to months rather than days or weeks. In Part B, the Commission examines whether non-jury trials or special juries should be used in cases of complexity or in lengthy trials and concludes that before considering these and thereby creating another exception to the general right in Article 38.5 of the Constitution to jury trial, other procedural solutions should first be considered. In Part C, therefore, the Commission discusses three procedural alternatives, namely, the selection of more than 12 jurors, the use of assessors and the provision of specific information in written form to assist juror comprehension. In this respect the Chapter addresses, in particular, the principle discussed in Chapter 1 that in order to ensure the right to a fair trial, jurors should have certain minimum standards of personal capacity and competence, which may require reasonable support and accommodation.
