Abstract:
Affidavits filed by Crown Solicitors in the case of Deborah Gordon-Smith v The Queen demonstrate that a considerable degree of national variation exists in the police vetting of prospective jurors. This paper will argue that a higher degree of consistency is both necessary and feasible. First, it will provide an overview of the relevant statutory framework, the case of Deborah Gordon-Smith v The Queen, and the contents of the Crown Law affidavits submitted in that case. Second, the paper will outline four factors which diminish the necessity for regular, thorough police vetting – specifically, the breadth of existing disqualification criteria, the introduction of majority verdicts, overstated assumptions about the bias of prospective jurors, and overstated assumptions about the influence of biased individuals on their fellow jurors. Finally, it will provide recommendations for possible reform modelled on current practices in the Auckland district.
The questions addressed by this paper are affected by several, often conflicting considerations. The fundamental outcome at stake is the right of every accused to a “fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial court”.1 However, particular care must also be taken with regard to both the privacy and security of prospective jurors, as well as the general public’s confidence in the criminal justice system. Given that no policy or framework can perfectly address all three considerations, a tenuous balance must therefore be struck. This paper will argue that consistency of jury-vetting practices across all New Zealand districts is fundamental to the achievement of such a balance.
