Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 71: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform his views on the composition of juries; if he plans to introduce legislative reform in this area; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14331/09]

Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Law Reform Commission has included a review of the law on juries in its "Third Programme of Law Reform 2008-2014". The Government will, of course, be considering in due course the recommendations made by the commission, including those relating to the composition of juries. Part 6 of the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2008 has already made a number of amendments to the Juries Act 1976 which affect the composition of juries. The most important change was the abolition of the upper age limit of 70 years for eligibility to serve on a jury. A person called for jury service remains entitled to be excused from service where he or she is over the age of 65 years.

Another important change is contained in the First Schedule to the Juries Act. The category of "incapable person" defined as being "a person who because of insufficient capacity to read, deafness or other permanent infirmity is unfit to serve on a jury" has been replaced by a category of "other persons" defined in more disability-friendly terms.

Section 55 amends section 11 of the Juries Act. The effect of this amendment is to provide an option exercisable by a county registrar to form panels for the Central Criminal Court and Circuit Court separately or to form one panel for both courts. This will facilitate the operation of the new Criminal Courts of Justice which will have a single jury assembly area and should also facilitate sittings of the Central Criminal Court which now sits regularly outside of Dublin. An amendment to section 12 which allows a person selected as a juror to be called to a place or reception area other than a court will also facilitate the operation of the new complex beside Heuston Station. Sections 60 to 63 of the Act amend sections 34 to 37 of the Juries Act by increasing tenfold the amount which may be levied by way of a fine for offences under the Juries Act.

Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Having mentioned Special Criminal Courts and non-jury courts, it is timely to remind the House of the fundamental role played by juries and jurors in the criminal justice system.

Is the Minister concerned at the large numbers of professionals who are excluded from jury service and are thereby disconnected from the administration of justice? For example, why are vets, airline pilots, nurses and dentists excluded from jury service? Does the Minister believe juries are therefore representative of the community? Perhaps it is time we considered reforming the jury system to ensure juries both reflect and represent society as a whole.

Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I would not be averse to having a look again at the composition of juries but certain occupations have been excluded because of the nature of their work. I am prepared to consider that issue in the context of any amendments but I would not like it to hold up the proposals in connection with gangland crime and some other issues to which I referred.

One measure we will consider in the context of gangland crime and the intimidation of witnesses and jurors is to increase the penalty from the existing ten years to approximately 15 years. That is an important statement by this House to the wider community that the intimidation of a witness would be akin to the most serious offences that are punishable in the criminal courts.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am interested in the reply the Minister gave at the outset. I seek clarification as to whether the recent changes allow for people who are profoundly deaf to serve on juries? What category of person is currently excluded and what are the reasons for such? Has any person been refused permission to serve on a jury since the changes were introduced to jury service last year?

Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The change related only to the type of language used in the legislation. To the best of my knowledge, nobody has been refused. I do not have any information on file in that regard. The new wording makes no specific reference to a particular disability, rather it refers to non-specific permanent infirmity, which would render it impracticable for persons to perform jury duty. Such designation would apply equally to persons with or without a disability.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On the question of juries, will the Minister clarify - in so far as he has thought it out - whether certain scheduled offences will be a matter for the criminal courts only, which do not have juries, or is he addressing the issue of witness intimidation? I am not sure what is the case from the package the Minister announced to accompany the surveillance Bill.

Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We are considering the scheduling of new offences of directing a criminal gang and membership of a criminal gang. Under the 2006 legislation there is the existing offence of participation in a criminal gang. It is the intention – subject to legal advice – to link that in some way to the Special Criminal Court, given that there is strong anecdotal evidence on the intimidation of witnesses, and the fear of witnesses, especially in the context of the murder of Roy Collins. We are considering the matter and I have already had significant meetings with the Garda Commissioner, the Secretary General of my Department and the Attorney General. We had a two-hour meeting yesterday to see how we can proceed. A further meeting of officials from all of those agencies will take place in the coming days to bring forward some of the changes I indicated are necessary in the aftermath of recent events.