Whither trial by jury?

By Bert Samuels, Guest Columnist

Commencing with the Gun Court law in 1974, our Parliament has consistently passed new legislation that, if breached, can land those found guilty with double-digit sentences. A consistent trend in these new laws is that the accused must be tried without a jury.

The inescapable inference is that the Parliament has lost faith in the common man being an integral part of the administration of justice. There is really no need for the Government to construct any new courtrooms with seats for a jury to sit and consider the evidence in serious criminal trials anymore. This is cost saving, trials will be expeditiously disposed of, and those who have no faith in the jury system are having their day in court.

When I studied law, I was led to believe that the rationale behind trial by jury was that, in serious offences where the penalties were 'stiff', the fate of accused citizens should not lie in the hands of a single individual. I learnt that that was to guard against arbitrary justice.

Consider that a corrupt government could change the rules relating to how we choose our judges, then hand-pick new ones, go on to create new offences or, under existing laws, try its opponents, and, subsequently, eliminate their enemies in trials before their judges!

Jurors wiser

Mr Justice Parnell, deceased, a sound and experienced jurist presiding over the admission of new lawyers to the Bar in 1982, made a point which continues to resound with me until today. In supporting the preservation of trials by jury in serious offences, he opined, "The collective wisdom of the jury is superior to the single mind of any judge."

Our parliamentarians must remember that the democratic process which landed them in Parliament was the result of votes cast by ordinary people. If we elect those in whose hands we place so much trust to pass laws for our good governance, by way of the ballot, why shouldn't we preserve trial by the very persons entrusted with that far-reaching responsibility? Jury trial is inextricably bound to the idea of democracy.

The year 2013 has witnessed the passage of the 'scammer' legislation with maximum sentences of up to 25 years, and there is now proposed an anti-gang legislation with a proposed 30-year maximum. Trial, in both cases, is without a jury!

Prior to 1962, ordinary people could not sit as jurors. Only the well-to-do, upon proof of ownership of property, could try cases and pronounce on the fate of the poor. Our people fought long and hard to remove that shackle and enfranchised all people to be eligible to sit on juries, deliberate on testimony, and return a verdict in accordance with the evidence.

Paul Bogle was not, and could not be, tried by his peers. We know his fate.

Bert Samuels is an attorney-at-law. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and bert.samuels@gmail.com.