Parliament weighs tripled juror stipend amid backlog crisis

Nearly two years after Justice Minister Delroy Chuck announced a 200 per cent increase in the stipend paid to Jamaicans who report for jury duty, the long-promised change has been formally brought to Parliament.

On Tuesday, Chuck tabled amendments to the Jury Act that would raise the daily stipend for jurors from $2,000 to $6,000 for each day, or part of a day, that they serve. The bill also introduces compensation for persons who are summoned for jury duty but are not ultimately selected.

Addressing the House, Chuck explained that under the proposed amendments, individuals who appear for jury selection but are not empanelled would receive $2,000 for each day they attend court.

“We felt it necessary to go even further than this to account for persons who are called to jury duty but who are not selected,” Chuck said, noting that the measure recognises the time and expense incurred by citizens who respond to jury summonses.

Chuck said the increases are intended to serve as an incentive and to ease the financial burden associated with jury service. He stressed that jury duty remains a vital civic responsibility and a key pillar of the justice system.

CORNERSTONE OF A FAIR JUSTICE SYSTEM

“This administration remains deeply appreciative of those who respond to the call for jury duty, recognising their service as a cornerstone of a fair and democratic justice system,” he told Parliament. “It is our hope that the increase in the stipend paid to jurors, and the introduction of a stipend for participating in the jury selection process, will offset some expenses incurred by the public as they fulfil this important role.”

The justice minister acknowledged, however, that the amendment took longer than expected to reach Parliament. He said the delay was due to the need for careful assessment and due diligence to ensure that the proposed increases were appropriate.

“Madam Speaker, additionally, at the end of the debates and the hopeful eventual passage of the bill, we will be asking the House to set up a Joint Select Committee to examine other matters related to the Jury Act,” Chick said.

That committee, he said, would examine whether jury trials should continue to be a feature of the court system, what types of cases are most suitable for jury trials versus judge-only (Bench) trials, and whether jury trials should be abolished altogether.

The issue has gained renewed attention following comments earlier this month by Chief Justice Bryan Sykes, who reiterated his call for the elimination of jury trials as a means of addressing the severe backlog in the criminal justice system. More than 3,000 criminal matters are currently awaiting trial in the Supreme and Circuit Courts.

Chuck argued that the question of jury versus Bench trials is ultimately one for Parliament, informed by consultations with stakeholders across the justice sector and the wider public.

However, the Government has acknowledged that it has not yet formulated a clear policy position on the matter.

The justice minister made the disclosure in response to Opposition Leader Mark Golding.

“I think Government, as formulator of policy, one would expect to put forward its position on this, having consulted to the extent it seemed necessary. I’m not sure what the Government’s position on it is. To send it to joint select committee for a discussion without the policy of the Government being clear seems odd to me,” Golding said.

But Chuck responded that the Government felt the matter is one for Parliament.

karen.madden@gleanerjm.com