DOCSLIB.ORG

Report 117, Jury Selection

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Report 117, Jury Selection NSW LAW REFORM COMMISSION REPORT 117 Jury selection September 2007 R117 Jury selection New South Wales. Law Reform Commission. Sydney 2007 ISSN 1030-0244 (Report) National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-publication entry New South Wales. Law Reform Commission. Jury selection. Bibliography. ISBN 978-0-7347-2628-5 1. Jury selection – New South Wales. 2. Jurors – New South Wales. 3. Jury duty – New South Wales. I. Title. (Series: Report (New South Wales. Law Reform Commission); 117). 347.9440752 ii NSW Law Reform Commission Contents New South Wales Law Reform Commission Letter to the Attorney General To the Hon John Hatzistergos Attorney General for New South Wales Dear Attorney Jury service We make this Report pursuant to the reference to this Commission received 14 August 2006. The Hon James Wood AO QC Chairperson September 2007 NSW Law Reform Commission iii R117 Jury selection iv NSW Law Reform Commission Contents Table of Contents Terms of reference ..........................................................................................xi Participants......................................................................................................xi RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................................xii 1. Introduction BACKGROUND .................................................................................................... 2 Past reviews.................................................................................................... 2 This review ...................................................................................................... 2 Lack of empirical data...................................................................................... 4 THE ROLE OF THE JURY IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM ....................................... 4 Current use of juries in NSW ........................................................................... 5 Criminal trials ............................................................................................. 5 Coroner’s inquests and inquiries ..................................................................... 7 Civil trials.................................................................................................... 7 THE COMPOSITION OF THE JURY.................................................................... 8 The representative jury.................................................................................... 9 Benefits.................................................................................................... 10 Risk of bias in appearing to exclude particular groups .................................. 12 Spreading the burden of service .............................................................. 14 Random selection.......................................................................................... 15 Peremptory challenge.................................................................................... 16 Volunteers................................................................................................ 16 Special panels.......................................................................................... 17 2. Qualification, disqualification and ineligibility TERMINOLOGY.................................................................................................. 20 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND............................................................................ 20 Early provisions for juries............................................................................... 20 First NSW provisions for qualification, exemption and disqualification.......... 22 The 1847 consolidation ................................................................................. 23 20th century developments............................................................................ 23 The current Act.............................................................................................. 24 QUALIFICATION................................................................................................. 25 Enrolment as an elector................................................................................. 25 Current law............................................................................................... 25 Moving beyond the electoral roll .............................................................. 26 Not disqualified.............................................................................................. 29 Not ineligible.................................................................................................. 29 A SINGLE CATEGORY OF EXCLUSION........................................................... 30 Reducing the categories of exclusion............................................................ 31 3. Disqualification arising from criminal history RATIONALE FOR EXCLUSION.......................................................................... 36 SERVICE OF A SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT............................................ 38 NSW Law Reform Commission v R117 Jury selection People currently serving a sentence.............................................................. 39 People who have completed a custodial sentence........................................ 39 Current law............................................................................................... 39 Law in other jurisdictions.......................................................................... 40 Balancing principles................................................................................. 41 The Commission’s conclusion ....................................................................... 43 JUVENILE OFFENDERS IN DETENTION.......................................................... 46 PEOPLE BOUND BY ORDERS OF A CRIMINAL COURT................................. 49 Apprehended violence orders........................................................................ 50 Disqualification from driving a motor vehicle ................................................. 52 Imprisonment for failure to pay a fine ............................................................ 54 Awaiting trial or sentencing............................................................................ 54 Recognizance to be of good behaviour or to keep the peace........................ 55 Other orders.................................................................................................. 56 IDENTIFYING CRIMINAL HISTORIES............................................................... 57 4. Occupational ineligibility THE GOVERNOR............................................................................................... 63 JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND CORONERS........................................................... 63 MEMBERS OR OFFICERS OF THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL............................ 66 MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OR LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 66 Common law immunity .................................................................................. 67 Statutory exemption....................................................................................... 68 Submissions .................................................................................................. 69 The Commission’s conclusion ....................................................................... 70 OFFICERS AND OTHER STAFF OF THE PARLIAMENT.................................. 71 LAWYERS........................................................................................................... 72 Australian lawyers ......................................................................................... 72 Crown Prosecutors, Public Defenders, Director or Deputy Directors of Public Prosecutions and Solicitors for Public Prosecutions..................... 74 People employed or engaged in the public sector in the provision of legal services in criminal cases ............................................................... 75 Lawyers in private practice who are employed or engaged in the provision of legal services in criminal cases ................................................ 76 The Commission’s conclusion ....................................................................... 78 PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYEES ........................................................................ 79 Law enforcement and criminal investigation, and police officers................... 80 Current NSW provisions .......................................................................... 80 Other Australian provisions...................................................................... 80 Past reviews............................................................................................. 81 Submissions............................................................................................. 82 The Commission’s conclusion.................................................................. 83 Administration of justice and penal administration ................................... 85 Administration of justice ........................................................................... 86 Penal administration ................................................................................ 88 OMBUDSMAN AND DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN.................................................... 89 Current NSW provisions ................................................................................ 89 Other Australian provisions...........................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Crosby K. Before the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015: Juror Punishment in Nineteenth- and Twentieth-Century England. Legal Studies 2015 DOI: 10.1111/Lest.12098
    Crosby K. Before the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015: Juror Punishment in Nineteenth- and Twentieth-Century England. Legal Studies 2015 DOI: 10.1111/lest.12098 Copyright: This is the peer reviewed version of the above article, which has been published in final form at http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/lest.12098. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving. Date deposited: 27/07/2015 Embargo release date: 21 December 2017 Newcastle University ePrints - eprint.ncl.ac.uk Before the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015: Juror Punishment in Nineteenth- and Twentieth- Century England Kevin Crosby* The Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 has created several new offences regarding juror misconduct. While this legislation has been passed in response to jurors accessing improper ‘evidence’ online, it is wrong to treat juror misconduct as a new problem. The most famous case on this topic (Bushell’s Case) did not completely prohibit juror punishment, but the rhetorical force of the decision was such that penal practices have until recently been overlooked in the academic literature. This article argues that assessing the new offences is greatly helped by understanding how juror misconduct has been responded to in the past. Drawing on the language of Bushell’s Case itself, as well as new archival research, it argues that previous practices of juror punishment have largely depended on whether particular instances of misconduct related to the juror’s ‘ministerial’ or ‘judicial’ functions; and that ‘judicial’ offences (those relating to verdict formation) have been much less likely to be punished.
    [Show full text]
  • SCC File No. 39062 in the SUPREME COURT of CANADA (ON APPEAL from the COURT of APPEAL for ONTARIO)
    SCC File No. 39062 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO) BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN APPELLANT (Respondent) – and – PARDEEP SINGH CHOUHAN RESPONDENT (Appellant) – and – ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MANITOBA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ALBERTA, ABORIGINAL LEGAL SERVICES, ADVOCATES' SOCIETY, DEBBIE BAPTISTE, BRITISH COLUMBIA CIVIL LIBERTIES ASSOCIATION, CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF BLACK LAWYERS, CANADIAN MUSLIM LAWYERS ASSOCIATION AND FEDERATION OF ASIAN CANADIAN LAWYERS, CRIMINAL LAWYERS' ASSOCIATION (ONTARIO), DAVID ASPER CENTRE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, DEFENCE COUNSEL ASSOCIATION OF OTTAWA, SOUTH ASIAN BAR ASSOCIATION OF TORONTO, ASSOCIATION QUÉBÉCOISE DES AVOCATS ET AVOCATES DE LA DÉFENSE INTERVENERS FACTUM OF THE INTERVENER DEFENCE COUNSEL ASSOCIATION OF OTTAWA (Pursuant to Rule 42 the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada) MICHAEL JOHNSTON JAMES COULTER SOLOMON FRIEDMAN Shore Johnston Hyslop Day | LLP James Coulter Law 200 Elgin Street (Suite 800) 200 Elgin Street (Suite 800) Ottawa, ON / K2P 1L5 Ottawa, ON / K2P 1 L5 Telephone: 1-613-233-7747 Telephone: 1-613-371-3884 Facsimile: 1-613-233-2374 Facsimile: 1-613-233-2374 E-mail: [email protected] E-Mail: [email protected] Counsel for the Intervener Agent for the Intervener Defence Counsel Association of Ottawa Defence Counsel Association of Ottawa i MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY NADIA EFFENDI GENERAL Crown Law Office – Criminal Borden Ladner Gervais LLP 10th Floor, 720 Bay Street World Exchange Plaza
    [Show full text]
  • “The Terror of Their Lives”: Irish Jurors' Experiences
    “The Terror of their Lives”: Irish Jurors’ Experiences NÍAMH HOWLIN 1. Why Consider Jurors’ Experiences? A commentator noted in 1881 that Irishmen regarded jury service as “the greatest burden that can be inflicted upon them ...they would be delighted if trial by jury was suspended tomorrow.”1 He later added, “[o]f course an enormous outcry would be raised about it in the national press, and in pub- lic meetings; but jurors ... would give anything in the world not to serve ...because it is the terror of their lives.”2 Much has been written about the poor state of the nineteenth-century Irish jury system,3 and it is certainly true that for various social, economic and political reasons, in comparison 1. Report from the Select Committee of the House of Lords on Irish Jury Laws, House of Commons Parliamentary Papers 1881 (430), xi, 1, per James Hamilton QC, chairman of the County Sligo quarter sessions, para. 3282. 2. Ibid., para. 3308. 3. See David Johnson, “Trial By Jury In Ireland 1860–1914,” The Journal of Legal History 17 (1996): 270–93; David S. Johnson, “The Trials of Sam Gray: Monaghan Politics and Nineteenth Century Irish Criminal Procedure,” Irish Jurist 20 (1985): 109– 34; John F. McEldowney, “‘Stand By for the Crown’: An Historical Analysis,” Criminal Law Review (1979): 272–83; John F. McEldowney, “The Case of The Queen v McKenna and Jury Packing in Ireland,” Irish Jurist 12 (1977): 339–54; John D. Jackson, Katie Quinn, and Tom O’Malley, “The Jury System in Contemporary Ireland: in the Shadow of a Troubled Past,” Law and Contemporary Problems 62 (1999): 203–32; and Niamh Howlin, “Controlling Jury Composition in Nineteenth-Century Ireland,” The Journal of Legal History 30 (2009): 227–61.
    [Show full text]
  • Law Reform Committee
    LAW REFORM COMMITTEE Jury Service in Victoria FINAL REPORT Volume 3 DECEMBER 1997 PARLIAMENT OF VICTORIA LAW REFORM COMMITTEE Jury Service in Victoria FINAL REPORT VOLUME 3 REPORT ON RESEARCH PROJECTS Ordered to be Printed Melbourne Government Printer December 1997 N° 76 Session 1996–97 COMMITTEE M EMBERS CHAIRMAN Mr Victor Perton, MP DEPUTY CHAIR Mr Neil Cole, MP MEMBERS Mr Florian Andrighetto, MP Hon Carlo Furletti, MLC Hon Monica Gould, MLC Mr Peter Loney, MP Mr Noel Maughan, MP Mr Alister Paterson, MP Mr John Thwaites, MP The Committee's address is — Level 8, 35 Spring Street MELBOURNE VICTORIA 3000 Telephone inquiries — (03) 9651 3644 Facsimile — (03) 9651 3674 Email — [email protected] Internet— http://www.vicnet.net.au/~lawref COMMITTEE S TAFF EXECUTIVE OFFICER and DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH Mr Douglas Trapnell RESEARCH OFFICERS Mr Mark Cowie (until 10 November 1995) Ms Padma Raman (from 3 March 1997) Ms Rebecca Waechter (until 18 November 1997) ADDITIONAL RESEARCH ASSISTANCE Ms Angelene Falk OFFICE MANAGERS Mrs Rhonda MacMahon (until 18 October 1996) Ms Lyn Petersen (from 2 December 1996 to 1 June 1997) Ms Angelica Vergara (from 11 August 1997) CONTENTS Committee Membership ........................................................................................................ iii Committee Staff ......................................................................................................................v Functions of the Committee...................................................................................................xi
    [Show full text]
  • Crossing Eight Mile: Juries of the Vicinage and County-Line Criminal Buffer Statutes
    Copyright <C 2005 by Washington Law Review Association CROSSING EIGHT MILE: JURIES OF THE VICINAGE AND COUNTY-LINE CRIMINAL BUFFER STATUTES Brian C. Kalt* Abstract: Several state statutes allow the state to choose the county in which to prosecute a person who allegedly committed a crime near a county line. Because these buffer statutes apply even in cases where the location of the crime is not in doubt, they are inappropriate on two levels. First, they are needless as a matter of policy; other statutes solve all of the problems that buffers purport to address, but without the detrimental effects. Second, they conflict with the principle-traditional in some states but constitutionally required in others-of trial by a jury of the vicinage, i.e., from the neighborhood in which the crime was committed. While theorists have recently argued that local juries are important because they allow communities to govern themselves, courts' treatment of buffer statutes makes it clear that, in practice, vicinage is not considered from this community-centered perspective. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 272 I. PREVALENT AND POINTLESS: THE HISTORY AND PRACTICE OF CRIMINAL COUNTY-LINE BUFFER STATUTES ...................................................................................... 275 A. Defmition of Tenns: Vicinage, Venue, and Jurisdiction ..... 276 B. Current Laws and Their Use ................................................ 276 Map A .................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Juries of the Vicinage and County-Line Criminal Buffer Statutes
    Washington Law Review Volume 80 Number 2 5-1-2005 Crossing Eight Mile: Juries of the Vicinage and County-Line Criminal Buffer Statutes Brian C. Kalt Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr Part of the Criminal Procedure Commons Recommended Citation Brian C. Kalt, Crossing Eight Mile: Juries of the Vicinage and County-Line Criminal Buffer Statutes, 80 Wash. L. Rev. 271 (2005). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr/vol80/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at UW Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington Law Review by an authorized editor of UW Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Copyright © 2005 by Washington Law Review Association CROSSING EIGHT MILE: JURIES OF THE VICINAGE AND COUNTY-LINE CRIMINAL BUFFER STATUTES Brian C. Kalt* Abstract: Several state statutes allow the state to choose the county in which to prosecute a person who allegedly committed a crime near a county line. Because these buffer statutes apply even in cases where the location of the crime is not in doubt, they are inappropriate on two levels. First, they are needless as a matter of policy; other statutes solve all of the problems that buffers purport to address, but without the detrimental effects. Second, they conflict with the principle-traditional in some states but constitutionally required in others--of trial by a jury of the vicinage, i.e., from the neighborhood in which the crime was committed.
    [Show full text]
  • Batson V. Kentucky: the Ewn and Improved Peremptory Challenge Cynthia Rowland-Richers
    Hastings Law Journal Volume 38 | Issue 6 Article 3 1-1987 Batson v. Kentucky: The ewN and Improved Peremptory Challenge Cynthia Rowland-Richers Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Cynthia Rowland-Richers, Batson v. Kentucky: The New and Improved Peremptory Challenge, 38 Hastings L.J. 1195 (1987). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol38/iss6/3 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. Notes Batson v. Kentucky: The New and Improved Peremptory Challenge The Supreme Court decision in Batson v. Kentucky1 promises to have a profound and positive effect on jury selection in criminal trials. In Batson, the Court addressed the racially discriminatory use of peremp- tory challenges for the first time since 1965. The Batson decision applies modem equal protection analysis to the prosecutor's use of the peremp- tory challenge to exclude members of the defendant's race from his jury, and sets up a new standard by which the defendant may make a claim of purposeful discrimination. Until Batson, a defendant had to prove systematic and consistent exclusion of potential jurors because of their race.2 This requirement was understood by the Batson Court to mean, for example, that the prosecu- tor must have consistently excluded every black juror in a black defend- ant's trial before the Court would invalidate the prosecutor's action under the equal protection clause.3 In practice, therefore, the prosecutor was almost completely free to exclude jurors who shared the defendant's race without constitutional scrutiny.
    [Show full text]
  • The Politics of Jury Trials in Nineteenth-Century Ireland
    (2015) Comparative Legal History The Politics of Jury Trials in Nineteenth-Century Ireland Niamh Howlin Abstract: This article considers aspects of lay participation in the Irish justice system, focusing on some political dimensions of the trial jury in the nineteenth century. It then identifies some broad themes common to systems of lay participation generally, and particularly nineteenth-century European systems. These include perceptions of legitimacy, State involvement and interference with jury trials, and issues around representativeness. The traditional lack of scholarship in the area of comparative criminal justice history has meant that many of the commonalities between different jury systems have been hitherto unexplored. It is hoped that this paper will contribute to a wider discussion of the various commonalities and differences in the development of lay participation in justice systems. I. Introduction Lay participation in the administration of justice in Ireland is based on a transplant of the English jury of twelve local laymen selected to make a decision on the facts in a civil or a criminal case. Of course, such over-simplification obscures the various intricacies of the nineteenth-century jury system, which had evolved over time into an extremely complex set of rules, procedures and practices. To start with, there were various categories of jury. The grand jury determined whether there was sufficient evidence for a criminal prosecution to run; the trial jury (or petty jury) decided on the guilt or innocence of the defendant in criminal cases, or settled a dispute between parties in a civil action; an inquest or coroner’s jury determined how death had occurred in cases that appeared suspicious.
    [Show full text]
  • This Electronic Thesis Or Dissertation Has Been Downloaded from the King’S Research Portal At
    This electronic thesis or dissertation has been downloaded from the King’s Research Portal at https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/ The case for abolishing jury trailas in the English legal system An analysis of the issues and consequences Yoshida, Narutoshi Awarding institution: King's College London The copyright of this thesis rests with the author and no quotation from it or information derived from it may be published without proper acknowledgement. END USER LICENCE AGREEMENT Unless another licence is stated on the immediately following page this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ You are free to copy, distribute and transmit the work Under the following conditions: Attribution: You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). Non Commercial: You may not use this work for commercial purposes. No Derivative Works - You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work. Any of these conditions can be waived if you receive permission from the author. Your fair dealings and other rights are in no way affected by the above. Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact [email protected] providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 25. Sep. 2021 The PhD Thesis The case for abolishing jury trials in the English legal system: an analysis of the issues and consequences PhD Candidate, The Dickson Poon School of Law, King’s College London Narutoshi Yoshida (0928748) 1 Abstract This thesis gives a critical study of the fairness and efficiency of the jury trial in the contemporary English justice system.
    [Show full text]
  • Juror Punishment, Juror Guidance and the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. Criminal Law Review 2015, (8), 578-593
    Crosby K. Juror Punishment, Juror Guidance and the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. Criminal Law Review 2015, (8), 578-593. Copyright: ©2015 Sweet & Maxwell. This is a pre-copyedited, author-produced version of an article accepted for publication in Criminal Law Review following peer review. The definitive published version Crosby K. Juror Punishment, Juror Guidance and the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. Criminal Law Review 2015, (8), 578-593 is available online on Westlaw UK or from Thomson Reuters DocDel service . Link to article: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2631245 Date deposited: 28/07/2015 Embargo release date: 01 August 2016 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License Newcastle University ePrints - eprint.ncl.ac.uk Juror Punishment, Juror Guidance and the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 Kevin Crosby* The Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 creates several new offences relating to juror misconduct, which have generally been considered pragmatic responses to the immediate problem of jurors using the internet to find additional “evidence”. Taking as its starting point the possibility of jury studies being written from an “interdisciplinary” perspective situated between mainstream legal scholarship and legal history, this article argues that after the practical abolition of juror punishment in 1670 the judge-jury relationship has usually been focused on juror guidance, not on juror punishment. This has had important consequences for the institution’s civic function, meaning any move in the direction of juror punishment has to be considered not simply as a pragmatic response to an immediate, isolated problem, but also as an important part of the jury’s continuing history as a political institution.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Prosecutors Should Voluntarily Waive Peremptory Challenges Maureen A
    University of Washington School of Law UW Law Digital Commons Articles Faculty Publications 2010 Taking the High Road: Why Prosecutors Should Voluntarily Waive Peremptory Challenges Maureen A. Howard University of Washington School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/faculty-articles Part of the Criminal Procedure Commons Recommended Citation Maureen A. Howard, Taking the High Road: Why Prosecutors Should Voluntarily Waive Peremptory Challenges, 23 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 369 (2010), https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/faculty-articles/367 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Publications at UW Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by an authorized administrator of UW Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Taking The High Road: Why Prosecutors Should Voluntarily Waive Peremptory Challenges MAUREEN A. HowARD1 ABSTRACT A fundamental tenet of the American justice system is that an impartial jury is an essential component of a fair trial. In addition to a litigant's right to have his or her case decided by jurors free of bias or prejudice, individual citizens enjoy a separate right to be considered for jury service without the taint of improper discrimination. Scholars have called for the elimination of peremptory challenges in jury selection, arguing they lack utility and are exercised in an unconstitution- ally discriminatory manner. No one, however, has proposed that prosecutors should voluntarily waive peremptory challenges even if the general practice is retained. A prosecutor's ethical duty goes beyond advocacy; unlike other lawyers, the prosecutor is uniquely duty-bound to "seek justice." Prosecutors' use of peremptory challenges is an exercise of discretion to be evaluated against this distinct ethical standard.
    [Show full text]
  • Keeping Women Off the Jury in 1920S England and Wales
    Crosby K. Keeping women off the jury in 1920s England and Wales. Legal Studies 2017 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/lest.12169 Copyright: This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Crosby K. Keeping women off the jury in 1920s England and Wales. Legal Studies 2017, which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1111/lest.12169. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving. DOI link to article: https://doi.org/10.1111/lest.12169 Date deposited: 12/02/2017 Embargo release date: 01 June 2019 Newcastle University ePrints - eprint.ncl.ac.uk KEEPING WOMEN OFF THE JURY IN 1920S ENGLAND AND WALES Kevin Crosby, Newcastle University1 As we approach the centenary of the female jury franchise in England and Wales, it is surprising how little has been written on its early history. Previous academic work has explored the role of feminist movements in campaigning against those rules – primarily the property qualifications and peremptory challenges – which kept women off the jury.2 This paper focuses on the part lawyers, officials and female jurors themselves played in the early years of female jury service. There were, as we shall see, different levels of female participation in different regions, which can be partially explained by traditions of administrative independence among those calling jurors to serve. There were also differences dependent on the types of crime being tried. By exploring newspaper reports and other contemporaneous discussions of female jurors, it will be shown that some of these exclusions were closely tied to popular perceptions about women’s acceptable public role.
    [Show full text]