Locke Keith: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Locke Keith: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:17973] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will support the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill being referred to the Law and Order Committee. The bill tidies up some of the issues about disability and questions like that. I think the question of excusing a juror who has a disability that would prevent them from properly fulfilling their jury service is a fair enough provision. Up until now I think it has been applied but it is good to put it in law. I think the bit in clause 10 about it being on written application for the purpose made by or on behalf of a person is quite important because it has to be on the initiative of the person with a disability. Sometimes people who are not disabled underestimate the capacities of people who are disabled. That is a constant problem in society. I think that if a disabled person in various respects feels that they can conduct jury duty they should be given a chance to do so. I think the select committee will have a look at that provision and make sure that it serves both purposes—that is not to hinder a jury by having somebody whose disability is to an extent that prevents them from properly operating as a juror and on the other hand not forcing a disabled person off a jury when they think they have the capabilities to perform that duty. 
There is another question on protecting the details of jurors protecting the privacy of jurors. That is one that I would like to hear some legal expertise on in the select committee. I can understand the need for privacy of jurors’ details and jurors not being subject to undue pressure from the prosecution from the defence or from people after a trial. We want people to give a fair decision in a jury trial unhindered by any outside pressures they might face before during or after the event. 
The only question I raise—and I would be interested in legal representations on it at the select committee—is whether it in any way offers a balance in terms of jury selection. I do not know whether it gets into that area. Jury selection is very important. The prosecution scans jury lists to see where potential jurors might fit in terms of its case whether they might be disposed in favour of its case and the defence tends to do the same. It looks for people on the jury who might be sympathetic to the case that it is proposing. The tension between the prosecution and the defence sometimes leads to a broad jury where both the prosecution and the defence get their way a bit in terms of the type of jurors they want to see on that particular jury for that particular case. 
I think it is important for the jury system to operate correctly and Rick Barker talked about this a little bit in his contribution. We do not need to have all people wearing suits and ties and carrying briefcases nor all people wearing jeans and T-shirts; we need a cross-section of society on juries so that on the jury—which in my experience and I have been on a jury tends to take its task pretty seriously—there is a feed-in from different life experiences and different sectors of society into the consideration of the case before the jury. Particularly as we move along and become more multicultural as a society it is good to have multicultural representation as well as broad gender representation etc. 
That is something I think we should jealously guard. We should create an atmosphere in society and in the prosecution and the defence that we really need a broadly based jury. Hopefully this provision will not in any way hinder that process. With those few words I say that the Green Party looks forward to this bill going to the Law and Order Committee and hearing particularly the experience of coalface lawyers from the prosecution and the defence and from the Law Society etc. on this particular bill and its provisions. Thank you.