Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 both seek to change the form of wording referring to a potential juror. It is worth stating that the policy of and legislative responsibility for the Juries Act 1976 rests with the Minister for Justice, and the relevant section of the amended Bill has been brought forward jointly by me and the Minister for Justice. Section 82 of the Bill was introduced to remove the prohibition on persons serving on a jury who, in the problematic word of the then section, has or had a mental illness or disability and is receiving medical treatment or is a resident in a hospital or similar institution. The intention of the Bill is that capacity to sit on a jury be assessed on a functional capacity basis. The proposed amendment No. 34 seeks to replace the wording introduced in this Bill. The amendment proposes to make a person ineligible for jury duty if he or she meets the criteria for detention under the Mental Health Act 2001 and is resident in an approved centre. Amendment No. 35 proposes to make all persons in hospitals or similar institutions by reason of ill health ineligible for jury service, where additional supports will be inadequate to facilitate the role of juror. While I recognise the goal of the amendments, I do not believe they are practicable in the context of the Juries Act and I think their wording is problematic. Amendment No. 34 runs contrary to the operation of the functional capacity test, whereby the ability to sit on a jury, even for someone receiving treatment under Part 4 of the 2001 Act, should be assessed in a manner presuming capacity and that is time-bound and context-bound. Similarly, the supports alluded to in amendment No. 35 are part of the broader operation of the functional test, whereby people's decision-making capacity will be facilitated and supported to the greatest extent possible. In fact, amendment No. 35 could have the unintended consequence of potentially disqualifying a person on grounds of physical health where no such provision currently exists or is desired. All persons should be eligible for jury service where the court is satisfied that they have capacity to fulfil the duties of a juror, which warrants the use of the functional capacity test to allow the court to assess their eligibility at the time of service. For those reasons I cannot accept this pair of amendments.