Assault on trial by jury
Published:Thursday | July 17, 2025 | 12:06 AM
THE EDITOR, Madam:
Trial by jury, once seen as sacrosanct, is now the victim of sustained assault. Observing youthful exuberance, my grandmother would often chime in, “young bud no know storm”. I recall in 1983 when I represented some members of the Grenada revolutionary. I recall in 1983 when I represented some members of the Grenada revolutionary government for murder.
Having lost on their appeal to their regional court of appeal, we were left with no other appellate court to go to, to challenge their death sentences.
This predicament was as a result of said murder convicts, and former Grenadian Cabinet members voting to abolish appeals to the Privy Council, but failing to replace it with a new final court of appeal.
One stormy day, may soon come or be in the unpredictable future. The anti-jury advocates may then, themselves, see the light and regret their abolition of the time tested and honoured institution that is trial by jury.
Yes, they may live to see the wisdom of putting their fate, not in one single palm, but rather in the collective hands of the random and mixed members of the community.One seasoned advocate, who has appeared before more juries than all the advocates seeking to remove trial by the people, says that we would fall in error should we abolish trial by jury. This is none other than the Director of Public Prosecutions. Interestingly, Miss Paula Llewellyn and myself, for decades, have led opposing teams in the courtroom, but our joint experiences bring us together in support of trial by jury. She is quoted early this year in this paper as having said, “there are some street wise nuances that come out in evidence that really only jurors would understand”. She was reflecting the words of the late former High Court Judge and Appeals Court judge, Justice Martin Wright, that the collective wisdom of the jury is superior to that of any single judge.No matter how well-intentioned our chief justice may be in advocating for removing trial by jury to address our serious case backlog, respectfully, this objective cannot replace the unique role that jurors play in the delivery of justice for Jamaicans. I could borrow a truism from Lord Diplock when, in reference to breaches of fundamental constitutional principles, he opined that they are “not excused by good intentions.” Expediency cannot replace time-honoured checks and balances in the delivery of justice.
The only arm of government that Jamaicans can currently participate and play a significant role in, is the judiciary. This is so because jurors are judges of the facts. The apathy which led to a shameful 30 per cent voter turnout for general elections recently is symptomatic of a failure of our Westminster style arrangement to attract the support of ordinary Jamaicans. The people feel forgotten by the executive and legislative arms of government. Take away the right to be judges, and the deep feeling of alienation will only increase.
I would be prepared to argue that we should, for very good reasons, be advocating for the placing of trial by jury for serious offences as a new constitutional right in our constitutional reform.
BERT SAMUELS
Attorney-at-Law