Service. The very word is divisive. It separates people into those who help and those who do not. For many who do serve, it may be their organisation’s motto and often a firmly held personal ideology. Many people serve in myriad official, unofficial and unpaid ways. Many know in order to have a functioning society, some must give so others in need can receive. Service above self without a doubt makes our world — and our corner of it — a better place.
One of the hallmarks of a functioning democratic society is a fair, efficient and transparent justice system. And in New Zealand, a foundation stone of our judicial structure — one critical to its equity — is the jury system.
This system, however, relies on ordinary citizens doing their bit as jurors. And the problem is, despite the critically important nature of the role, the vast majority of people are continuing to opt out of jury service despite being summonsed.
Most listed on the New Zealand electoral roll can be randomly selected for jury service. People can be summonsed for service every two years. Serving is a legal obligation under the Juries Act.
Dunedinites are by no means the worst "offenders" in terms of not heeding the call, but we are far from squeaky clean. Ministry of Justice figures from June 2013 to June 2016 show more than a quarter of those summonsed for jury duty in Dunedin did not even bother to show up or give any explanation for their absence. A quarter of those summonsed applied to be excused from service. Almost a third of those summonsed asked for their service to be deferred (whether they actually do go on to serve on a jury later is unclear).
So, according to the figures, only a fifth of those summonsed for jury service in Dunedin are actually fronting up. It is a sobering reflection on our community and one that has many surprised. Most of us probably like to think we are more community minded than that.
Whanganui was the worst area for potential jurors not turning up. More than a third (34.6%), for that June 2013 to June 2016 period, neither showed up nor gave any explanation. Nelson had easily the best figure at 14.2%. Invercargill was only a little better than Dunedin (25.3% compared to 26.5%), and Timaru’s level was 22.9%.
Of course there are valid reasons why people may be unable to attend. Depending on the nature of the trial, jury service could be confronting. Understandably, some people may feel fearful or apprehensive at the prospect.
It is undoubtedly a disruption to everyday lives and some trials may be lengthy.
Some may worry about the financial repercussions, although jurors are recompensed and employers are obligated to enable their employees to attend jury service (some may even top up the Ministry of Justice’s attendance fee to the employees’ standard rate of pay).
While the problem is not enough to hinder justice being served, it is perennial and a wider jury pool is desirable. Legislative changes were made in October 2010 in a bid to improve attendance rates, including extending the district boundaries and allowing for deferrals within a year. But as long as the punishment (a fine of up to $1000) for non-attendance is rarely sought, people will continue to turn their backs on their duty. Of course, enforcing the law and compelling reluctant people to attend is undesirable in a democracy too, and what price justice in that case?
It is a shame, however, given citizens have a lot to gain from the experience. For jurors have a unique and powerful opportunity to shape individual lives and influence society as a whole.
Like voting, the role of juror is privileged, and with such privilege comes responsibility. It is all too easy to criticise offenders, police, the Government, the judiciary, the media, "the system". Everyone asked should try sitting a while in the jury’s pews — for the good of all.
