Ivana Bacik (Independent) | Oireachtas source

This is a sensible and practical provision, particularly given the prospect of long trials involving, for example, complex banking fraud or other such fraud. There is a concern to ensure we have a sufficient number of jurors available in such cases. I am conscious that there has been little research done in Ireland on the inner workings of juries. A former PhD student of mine, Dr. Mark Coen, has done a good deal of research on the quality of juror decision making. I wonder if the Law Reform Commission considered the alternative of having substitute jurors, as opposed to selecting up to 15 jurors, all of whom would sit as jurors during the course of the deliberations of the court and from whom 12 would be selected by ballot.

In terms of the quality of the attention individual jurors would pay, is it considered preferable to have a position where only 12 of the 15 jurors would ultimately be chosen? Would it be better to have the alternative model, under which one would have 12 jurors and up to three additional jurors who know they would only act as substitutes if some of the 12 jurors drop out? I do not recall whether the Law Reform Commission considered the latter option, which may be preferable in terms of ensuring jurors pay the necessary level of attention to proceedings. I have an open mind on the issue. Given the need to make some provision for the types of circumstances the Minister outlined, the proposal is a sensible one. My concern is to ensure it is the best solution.