Jury Service (lrc 107-2013)
Download 1.75 Mb.
|
Juries Act 1949 as amended.
538 Juries Act 2000. 539 Jury Regulation 2004. 540 This payment is treated as income for tax and social security purposes. 541 Jury Rules 1990. 543 Ibid at 190. 544 Title 28, section 1871 of the United States Code. 545 Employees of the federal government are paid their regular salary in lieu of this fee. 546 Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Tennessee and Wisconsin and the District of Columbia. 547 See www.alec.org. 548 Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah and Vermont. See Garcia “A Greater Good: Jury Duty, Payment and Your Job” The Washington Post, 7 June 2007, available at www.washingtonpost.com. 549 Consultation Paper at paragraph 7.37. 550 Ibid at paragraph 7.38. 551 Ibid at paragraph 7.39. 552 Ibid at paragraphs 7.11 to 7.15. 553 Ibid at paragraphs 7.13 to 7.16. 554 Report of the Fraud Trials Committee (1986). The Committee was chaired by Lord Roskill. 556 Auld Review of the Criminal Courts in England and Wales (2001) at 202-204. 557 Auld Review of the Criminal Courts in England and Wales (2001) at 207-208. 558 See also the related provisions in sections 44 to 50 of the 2003 Act, which provide for non-jury trials to deal with jury tampering, discussed at paragraphs 7.21-7.29, above. 559 Report of the Government Advisory Committee on Fraud (Pl.9409, 1992). 560 [1976] IR 36: see the discussion in Chapter 1, above. 561 Report of the Government Advisory Committee on Fraud (Pl.9409, 1992), at paragraphs 8.8-8.9. 562 Sunday Business Post, 24 October 2011. 563 See Vidmar (ed) World Jury Systems (Oxford University Press, 2000). 565 [1976] IR 36: see the discussion in Chapter 1, above. 566 Report of the Government Advisory Committee on Fraud (Pl.9409, 1992) at paragraphs 8.8-8.9. 567 Report of the Fraud Trials Committee (1986). 568 Ibid at paragraphs 9.9-9.15. 569 Ibid at paragraphs 9.19-9.25. 570 Report on the Law Relating to Dishonesty (LRC 43-1992) at paragraphs 39.28-39.31. 571 Report of the Government Advisory Committee on Fraud (Pl.9409, 1992). 572 As already noted, the question of reform of pre-trial procedures in criminal trials on indictment is outside the scope of this project and requires separate consideration. 573 Report of the Government Advisory Committee on Fraud (Pl.9409, 1992) at paragraph 8.16. 574 25th Interim Report of the Committee on Court Practice and Procedure The Provision of Documentation to Juries in Serious Fraud Trials (1997). 575 25th Interim Report of the Committee on Court Practice and Procedure The Provision of Documentation to Juries in Serious Fraud Trials (1997) at paragraph 6. 576 Ibid at paragraph 7. 577 See Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001 (Commencement) Order 2011 (SI No.394 of 2011). 578 Section 10 of the Competition Bill 2001 had been modelled exactly on section 57 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001 and had also provided for the provision of documents coming within category (7) in section 57(1) of the 2001 Act. This was removed during Committee Stage in Dáil Éireann, though without discussion: see Dáil Éireann, Committee Stage, Competition Bill 2001 (20 March 2002), available at http://debates.oireachtas.ie/BUS/2002/03/20/00003.asp. As a result, section 10 of the Competition Act 2002 as enacted does not provide for such documents. This does not, in practice, create an enormous difference between the Acts because section 9 of the 2002 Act provides for the use of assessors: see the discussion below. 579 See Competition Act 2002 (Section 10) (Commencement) Order 2011 (SI No.491 of 2011). 580 Thomas Are Juries Fair? UK Ministry of Justice Research Series 1/10 (2010), discussed in Chapter 8, above, in the context of jury misconduct and use of the internet. 581 Thomas Are Juries Fair? UK Ministry of Justice Research Series 1/10 (2010). 582 25th Interim Report of the Committee on Court Practice and Procedure The Provision of Documentation to Juries in Serious Fraud Trials (1997). 583 Thomas Are Juries Fair? UK Ministry of Justice Research Series 1/10 (2010), discussed in Chapter 8, above, in the context of jury misconduct and use of the internet. 584 Dickey “The Province and Function of Assessors in English Courts” (1970) 33 MLR 494. 585 See for example The State (Polymark Ireland Ltd) v Labour Court [1987] ILRM 357, approved in Georgopoulos v Beaumont Hospital Board [1994] ILRM 58, 586 Dickey “The Province and Function of Assessors in English Courts” (1970) 33 MLR 494, at 501. 587 Final Report of the Competition and Merger Review Group (2000), Recommendation 8, at 337. Available at www.djei.ie. 588 [2004] IEHC 330, [2007] IESC 22, [2007] 4 IR 757. 589 In addition, in High Court civil competition claims, Order 63B of the Rules of the Superior Courts 1986 provides for the use of assessors, as opposed to expert witnesses, in civil competition cases. Order 63B was inserted into the 1986 Rules by the Rules of the Superior Courts (Competition Proceedings) 2005 (SI No.130 of 2005). Order 63B, rule 23 has the heading “Assessors” and provides for the appointment “to assist the court in understanding or clarifying a matter, or evidence in relation to a matter, in respect of which that person (in this rule hereinafter called an “expert”) has skill and experience.” Although O.63B, rule 23, perhaps confusingly, refers to such a person as an “expert” the person appointed is not an expert witness because he or she acts in the manner envisaged by section 59 of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) Act 1877. Thus, O.63B, rule 23(4) states: “Where the expert [assessor] provides advice or other information to the Court, the Court shall, where it considers it appropriate in the interests of justice, inform the parties of such advice or information and afford each of them an opportunity to make submissions in respect of it.” This would not be required if the person appointed acted as a witness. 590 Walsh Criminal Procedure (Round Hall, 2002) at 939. 591 See for example The People (Attorney General) v Longe [1967] IR 369. 592 [1992] 2 IR 17. 593 Ibid at 26-27. 594 Walsh Criminal Procedure (Round Hall, 2002) at 858-859. 595 Where possible, the extraneous material or communication is brought to the judge’s attention, and not the impact which it had on deliberations, in order to preserve insofar as possible the secrecy of the jury room. Walsh Criminal Procedure (Round Hall, 2002) at 862-864. 596 Walsh Criminal Procedure (Round Hall, 2002) at 859-860. 597 Walsh Criminal Procedure (Round Hall, 2002) at 867. 598 Coen “Elephants in the Room: The Law Reform Commission Consultation Paper on Jury Service – Part I” (2010) Irish Criminal Law Journal 20(3) 75, at 75-76. 600 Ibid at 364. 601 Ibid at 365. 602 Ibid at 364-366. 603 That is, the power of the jury to acquit a defendant whose conduct unquestionably falls within the definition of the offence as a result of a dislike of or disrespect for the law. The Consultation Paper on Contempt of Court (LRC CP 4-1991) pointed out that if deliberations were no longer to remain secret juries would lack the autonomy to rectify injustices according to the perception of common people, citing R v Ponting [1985] Crim LR 318. 604 Consultation Paper on Contempt of Court (LRC CP 4-1991) at 369. 605 Ibid at 370-371. 606 Report on Contempt of Court (LRC 46-1994) at 51. 607 Consultation Paper at paragraph 8.69. 608 Law Commission of New Zealand Juries in Criminal Trials (Preliminary Paper 37, Vols. 1 and 2, November 1999) and (Report 69, February 2001, Chapter 14). 609 [1981] QB 1. 610 Law Commission for England and Wales Contempt of Court: A Consultation Paper (Consultation Paper No 209, 2012), available at http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/docs/cp209_contempt_of_court.pdf. 611 Thomas Diversity and Fairness in the Jury System UK Ministry of Justice Research Series 2/07 (2007) (Jury Diversity Project), Chapter 1. 612 Thomas Are Juries Fair? UK Ministry of Justice Research Series 1/10 (2010). 613 Management of Jurors: An inspection of the management of jurors by the Northern Ireland Courts Service (Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland, 2010), available at www.cjini.org, discussed at paragraph 2.35, above. 615 This Draft Juries Bill 2013 implements the recommendations in the Report that involve the reform of the law on jury service, currently set out in the Juries Act 1976 (as amended). A number of sections of the draft Bill repeat, without amendment (other than small drafting changes), those provisions of the 1976 Act in respect of which the Commission has either not recommended reform or which did not form part of this project but which are set out in the draft Bill for completeness. Directory: fileupload fileupload -> Phone Line Justification (ata-analog Telephone Adapter Connected Devices) fileupload -> Vehicle Bill of Sale fileupload -> Marion county, south carolina fileupload -> Georgina Campbell’s Ireland Guide App Download 1.75 Mb. Share with your friends:
|