In support of jury trials
Published:Saturday | July 19, 2025 | 12:07 AM
THE EDITOR, Madam:
Attorney-at-law Bert Samuels wrote a letter to the editor on July 17 headlined ‘Assault on trial by jury’, which outlined the importance of having jury trials.
Jury trials are an integral part of the legal system, as they provide a forum for citizens to actively participate in the determination of guilt or innocence. This reinforces public trust and confidence in the justice system. A jury ensures a fair representation of society’s values and perspectives. Further, the jury system acts as a safeguard against potential abuses of power. The collective wisdom and judgement of the jury helps to uphold the principles of justice and prevent any undue influence on the outcome of a trial.
The jury serves as an impartial panel that listens to the evidence presented during a trial and decides the facts of a case.
While the judge presides over the trial, ensuring that the rules of law are followed, it is the jury that holds the power to decide the fate of the accused. I concur with Director of Public Prosecutions Paula Llewellyn as she was quoted by The Gleaner “there are some streetwise nuances that come out in evidence that really only jurors would understand”.
I understand the viewpoint posited that the collective wisdom of the jury is quite superior to that of any single judge. That is the incontrovertible fact and under no circumstances should jury trials be abolished. Samuels is absolutely correct when he writes “I would be prepared to argue that we should, for very good reasons, be advocating for the placing of trial by jury for serious offences as a new constitutional right in our constitutional reform”.
Chief Justice Bryan Sykes is of the view that, as a result of the serious and severe problems with finding jurors to serve in the courts, jury trials should be abolished. Critics of the jury system often point to the jurors’ lack of legal knowledge and understanding as a significant flaw. Complex legal issues and evidence can be challenging for laypersons to comprehend fully, potentially leading to misunderstandings and incorrect verdicts.
Another criticism of the jury system is the potential for bias and prejudice among jurors, which can influence verdicts. In the case of R v Taylor and Taylor [1993], the Court of Appeal in the United Kingdom quashed the convictions of two sisters for murder, partly because of the “massive adverse publicity” surrounding their trial, which could have prejudiced the jury. This case underscores the challenges in ensuring a fair trial in high-profile cases and highlights the susceptibility of jurors to external influences.
The government should widen the pool and categories of persons who can serve as jurors.
ROBERT DALLEY