Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)

I am happy to inform the House that the Government intends to reform the law on juries generally. The Courts Service is also studying the issue of where we should go in respect of reform of jury law. Juries should not necessarily be selected the way they are, namely, that 200 people are brought in on the morning of a trial and herded like cattle and then selected at random. That is no longer necessary.

It is unnecessary also to have a system where the age limits mentioned by Senator Cummins are adhered to rigidly as people are full citizens of our society. When these proposals were made in the mid-1970s by the then Minister Cooney, he may have thought it fair that senior members of society would not be dragged into jury trials against their inclinations. However, increasing longevity means these age limits should not be mandatory, but jurors who want to excuse themselves on the grounds of age should have that facility.

The law in respect of challenging jurors must also be examined. A jury should comprise a random selection of a cross section of society. However, defence counsel frequently knock off anybody who looks respectable or anyone with a pioneer pin. Likewise, I have seen prosecutors knock off males with long pony tails. Perhaps there is something more to these decisions, but one is never given reasons. There seems to be a tendency to knock people off jury panels on arbitrary grounds, perhaps on the basis they look too respectable or too like gougers to serve on a jury. This issue should be examined.

The question of remuneration is another area for consideration. Is it reasonable to require a self-employed electrician, for example, to spend three weeks serving on a jury on a rape case? Who will recompense him or her for this? We need to look at this issue. Other areas we should examine are the intimidation and protection of juries.

I agree Mr. Cooney's initiative in the mid-1970s, arising as it did from litigation in the courts on constitutionality, was a step forward. A quarter of a century has elapsed since then and it is time now for another great leap forward, but this Bill is not the one in which to do it.