Jury pool needs to expand
(CNS): Chief Justice Anthony Smellie has backed the call by the legal profession to expand the Cayman Islands’ jury pool beyond the electoral register. The country’s top judge warned that law reform was by no means the only way to address the issue of rising crime as he offered his support to the idea of extending the roll of jurors to include all adults lawfully resident in the jurisdiction. He said penal or punitive measures could only go so far to protect the public interest and that legislation is not meant to be a panacea to crime. The CJ also revealed that the judiciary’s advice against moves by government to remove the right to trial by jury had been accepted.
Talking about the need for the community to be more engaged in the fight against crime during his address at the opening of the Grand Court, Smellie explained the advantages to be gained by widening the net when it came to jurors.
“If adopted, [it] would not only greatly increase the number of potential jurors it would also spread all the burdens and responsibilities of jury duty across that wider base,” the judge told the audience gathered at the court house for the official ceremony. “And it follows, there would be even less to be gained for those with criminal intentions in seeking to intimidate jurors, if they were assured that the society at large refuses to be intimidated.”
The difficulty of panelling juries is an ongoing problem in Cayman as a result of the relatively small jury pool and the family connections between people. In February last year the process of jury selection in one firearms related trial with four defendants resulted in the entire jury pool for that session being dismissed for one reason or another when only four people had been sworn to serve. The court staff were then forced to literally trawl the streets of George Town to find the remaining three jurors, and when one fell ill the trial went ahead with only six people sitting on the jury.
During jury selection it is common for those who are called to serve to reveal direct connections with the defendants, the victims, the witnesses or the police involved with the case. Coupled with the right of both the crown and the defence attorneys to refuse up to five juror’s each, it can take a long time to find seven people, and in the case of murder trials twelve people, who can honestly say they are completely impartial.
With the rise in crime in the local community, the chief justice said that legislative reform was not an uncommon response but he emphasized it was not the only response and called on the community to help. “No matter how draconian the measure, it can provide no substitute for the will of society itself at large to confront the problem of crime and for the responsibility of each and every law abiding citizen to do his or her part to assist the law enforcement authorities in the response to crime. Strength in numbers is the ultimate recourse of lawful society,” the top judge said.
Noting the dangers and limitations of law reform he pointed to a recent ruling in the Court of Appeal with regard to the crown’s use of the new witness anonymity law. The Court of Appeal had explained in the ruling “why such anonymity orders should only be made in exceptional circumstances and why a witness protection programme in Cayman is likely to have only limited practicability.”
He said taken as a whole, the raft of legislative changes told the story of a society that “perceives itself as faced with a crisis” and was using legislative means to respond.
“While such a response is understandable and even to be expected, the judicial perspective must nonetheless be objective as the legislative measures arise for interpretation, implementation and enforcement. And it is then that the realities that separate the expected benefits, from the practical limitations of this kind of legislation, are likely to be tested, explained and declared,” the judge warned.
Any perceived attempt to retreat behind a legislative cloak of protection could send the wrong message, Smellie added.
He also spoke of the need to tackle the rise in violent crime in alternative ways. Following the presentation from Attorney General Sam Bulgin, the chief justice said the early and continued intervention with young people at risk could do a lot more to address the issue than legislation alone.
Category: Headline News
It is very difficult to value or respect the opinions of some when all they ever do is counter my simple observations of internally acknowledged prejudices within their people and culture as evidence of prejudice within myself.
Should the regressive and shameful qualities of some people be ignored and allowed free roam? If so, on what basis? Superiority? Entitlement?
I appreciate strong and solid debates over thorny issues – however, on this forum it always seems to deteriorate into playground tactics.
You are not interested in debate. You simply use this forum to voice your own prejudices. Just one example from your posts on this thread. You wrote:
" How can anyone not object to citizens that hail from an "institutionally racist" country being freely allowed into the jury pool of a predominantly Black (and culturally opposed) nation of people?"
This was written in response to my disclosure I am English. You are very clearly stating that none of the 55 million people who make up the English population, or the representatives of that country who reside in Cayman, can be trusted to fulfill the role of jurist without their, according to you, racist characteristics coming into play.
How many of these people do you know? 100, maybe 500? Even if every Englishman you knew exhibited the racist characteristics of which you complain, which is frankly an unsustainable position, this is still no basis for extending the allegation to entire populations. Any such assertion when looked at rationally is based on your own racism, not objective and reasoned thinking.
Here is an interesting one for you. Why have you ( or any other Caymanian who has followed this thread ) not challenged Gordon Barlow’s assertion that non-Caymanians need protection from the illegal abuse of the immigration process here? Your tacit acceptance of this as a given (and possibly as part of your birthright) , by arguing not that such abuses do not happen, but rather that protection against such illegal actions somehow provides non-Caymanians with an advantage, speaks volumes for your own lack of ethics, low regard for the rights of others and disregard for the rule of law when it suits you.
I have no respect for racists, regardless of nationality or colour so you know where you stand with me.
No calls for jury duty for our family have been received.
There are 3 register voters in our family and we are yet to see a summons for jury duty.
But as luck would have it, I bet now that I’ve ‘put my mouth on us’ we’ll be sure to receive notice. LOL
Anyway we welcome the opportunity.
The Chief Justice has raised a very interesting issue. Of course the jury pool should be increased; but equally the electoral roll should be increased. If we expect people to serve in such an important capacity, we should be willing to give them the right to vote. But expanding the electoral base to include many more of those who have made a real and long term commitment to the Islands appears to be a subject neither political party seems to be keen to address.
I am 43 and have voted in every election from the day I was eligible to vote, and I have never ever been called once!!
How is that possible?
Mr. CJ you may want to revamp your words and come again, as from the look of it many on here are ignored from the list too.
I would agree with expanding the pool of persons eligible for jury selection. Simply including all key employees & permanent residents (over 18) should suffice. These persons have expressed the desire to eventually become citizens and this would be another step. Plus all status holders (by birth, grant, or deed) over the age of 18 should be included, not just those registered to vote.
To me, anyone that has legal rights on the island should be able to serve in the jury. The criteria should not be where they are from or how long they have been here. So long they are legal residents or have rights to work here, and are rational thinkers, they would make good jurors.
Import them and contract them, one year limit.
Jury pools are like gene pools, the larger the better.
We should remember that the function of a jury is a simple one, namely to determine issues of fact. That is all they do – determine whether something happened andtherefore whether they are guilty or not. There is no special national or political significance which justifies the reason why a Caymanian would be better suited to this task than a long term resident.
I have seen serious problems with jury selections in recent months and several trials where the accused has been acquitted in circumstances where the acquittal can only be explained by perverse jury decisions (and thus a suspicion of links between the accused and jury members).
Bottom line: an accused in entitled to a trial before a jury of his peers. The current selection system does not provide for a jury that represents the society of the Cayman Islands, rather it reflects a minority of that society.
Well, there are certain major countries from which many of our expat / legal residents hail that have a long standing history of culturally biased accusations / convictions and "institutional racism". In other words, to be biased is a part of the inherent culture of the land.
Besides that, we have already had "expat" judges convicted of prejudiced arguments at the time of ruling.
It is clear for all to see the anonymous animosity and disregard that many in our midst have towards Caymanians.
It is blatantly obvious that many of these individuals are NOT my / our "peers".
(After all, in the eyes of some we are "a people devoid of any culture whatsoever" – so comforting to know that such folks may soon make up the members of our jury.)
However, the numbers must be met. Good ol’ democracy / capitalism – it is all about the numbers at the end of the day.
Good luck to us all.
* With every passing day native Cayman society is becoming more ghettoized.
Nevertheless, in time we will prove to be a pioneer in the ironic shifting trends of the western world, for in the next few decades many of the long standing cultural / national dynamics will be reversed.
I only wish that we "warm and friendly" Caymanians were allowed to merely speak on this issue as frankly and easily as other nations (USA /UK / EU) are currently voting, rioting and attacking as a result without being labeled in the way that is sure to be demonstrated in many of the forthcoming responses to this post.
So let me see if I have your argument right.
Because I am a white Englishman and therefore almost certainly from one of the countries you consider to have institutional racism and cultural bias, I cannot be trusted to sit on a jury because I will automatically consider a Caymanian or non-white guilty simply for being Caymanian or non-white?
Alternatively, I will find any white person or Englishman innocent, regardless of obvious guilt, because they are white or English.
Rarely has your own prejudice coloured a post more.
Yep.
It is clear to see the negative attitude that many expats living in Cayman hold towards Caymanian people.
We would very much prefer to go about this crucial component of civilized existence without the disgusting, damaging and regressive realities that are so prominent within societies such as yours.
Is that an unreasonable demand or hope?
We do not want your poison here – we have enough things on our plate to deal with in this tiny country.
* How can anyone not object to citizens that hail from an "institutionally racist" country being freely allowed into the jury pool of a predominantly Black (and culturally opposed) nation of people?
Only those who place little or no value on the perspective and prospects of those very people would ignore the possible ramifications.
Sounds a bit like a merry-go-round doesn’t it?
" Sounds a bit like a merry-go-round doesn’t it?"
No – it just sounds like more of your deep seated prejudice.
Where is this jury pool and how do you get to swim there?
Some years ago when we had most expatriates living here because they loved it here, mingled with the locals and worked alongside and learned from each other I would have said yes altough the place had less people and most people knew quite a few persons. I sure don’t expect to commit a crime at my age but one of my kids might get in trouble and have to go to court in front of a jury God forbid.But the comments and disrespect towards the host (Caymanians) of this country that I read I sure hope I won’t be around to see that happen but there are quite a few wackos around these days hiding behind Anonymous saying things that actually are very provocative and the total lack of our of respect for our heritage and Country. I have many expatriate friends that have been here a good while now or rolled over and came back and they know where I stand. But we have such a high turnover and so many different people with very different culture(100 +natonalities). I have to say NO to that. I have enough imagination and common sense to know that could not work.All those status given some years back you would think that their character was at least looked at or well known to some local persons. Common man, are you serious? What next ? I was not born here and had to earn the respect of the Caymanians, learn their culture and not try an impose mine first like what I see today. Earn the respect of the people first, not the other way around and learn about the history of the Cayman Islands,it wasn’t how you came and found it.People worked hard and sacrifice a whole lot.Use those with residency if you wish I think they earned that.
Personally I think we need to get rid of the Jury system altogether. The outcome of most criminal cases have been decided by the emotions of the Jurors and not the presentation of evidence. The jury system is long outdated and Jurors, who can never be a lawyer or a police officer, are not trained well enough to assess the evidence presented to come to a correct decision.
Hello! You have Judges who follow their emotions too!
Also, you can simply hide the identity of jurors and this will eliminate the chances of any of them being interfered by an accused person. If you have a Witness Protection law, you can also have a Jury Protection law as well – why not?
We all know local juries don’t convict locals. That’s why there are no local judges – and why the local coppers dont last.
So, make all residents jurists, or else the criminals will put these islands deeper in the bin. Aren’t we now in the majority anyway?
The next election should be proper fun!
Not true that locals don’t convict. You are the reason I oppose persons like you sitiing on a jury by puttting alleged criminals deeper in the bin. Your instruction from the judge are clear;Without a reasonnable doubt. And lastly the next elections are not going to be fun. It’s going to be very serious and we are living in a serious time and we don’t find it very funny. Too many persons are hurting and we don’t have much of a sense of humour on the subject right now. So do your job and FEEL our pain.
Myself, my sister and husband are Caymanian, 33,34 and 37, registered voters, no convictions, never called for jury duty. My coworker has served atleast twice. It cant be the electoral list they are using.
I hope the Chief Justice would reverse his position regarding expanding the jury pool beyond the electoral register.
Dennie, Please explain your position, I am potentaily eligible to register to vote, but one of the reasons that I am reluctant to do so is because of the jury duty situation. Mind you, I would be far more willing to serve if jurors were not treated as shit by the judiciary. They are required to show up for duty (no parking , mind you) on pain of fine, then held waiting for hours, to be told to come back another day, often changed at the last minute. This goes on for months, in many cases.
It would appear to me that the judiciary has no respect for the jury pool. Lawyers, defendants, the prosecution and witnesses on both sides apparently have valid explainations why they cannot be in court on a given day, but the public (who I suggest are the ultimate customers of the legal system) seem to have no rights whatsoever.
I have always wondered about that expression " contempt of court" . I have to admit a tendancy to admit a guilty plea to that charge, given the contempt displayed by the legal system towards their "customers". That would be you and me who pay their salaries!
I have been on jury duty twice. Once as a foreman. I must admit that it can be a challenge and it depends on the case. Yes it’s demanding but we were not mistreated at all; as long as we showed up when asked. I did learn quite a bit and came out of it with more respect for the judges for their instructions. When you have someones life in your hands and work alongside your pears you really have to pay attention and think that it could be a member of your family there. Parking for jurors is definatly needed and could easier be done behind the library with proper id hung to the mirror such as valet parking in the US. It does give you a sense of duty and belonging and get you get some form of compensation at the end (not a lot and the fine is higher).What is the most painful as the attorneys and the crown agree or disagree. Sort of an elimination system.I would not loose my right to vote specially in these unpleasant times just because I might be called for jury duty. I do agree that it could be achieved( jury duty picking) in a more organised system. I hope that I was able to shed a little light om the matter and now understand what I meant by a jury of it’s peirs.
Court staff have been scamming the jury system for years. We all know that jurors are supposed to be drawn at "random" from the Electoral List. The problem is that the Electoral List only has home addresses, and Court staff only work 9-5 when nobody is home.
In order to get a pool of jurors Court staff go to the larger employers on the island CUC, C&W etc. and make deals with the HR Managers over how many employees they will call at one time. So if you work for a very small company, say less than ten employees, it is safe to say that it is unlikely that you will ever be called for jury duty.
If you have any doubts about what I am saying, ask anyone who as ever served on a jury and ask if their summons was delivered to their home or their workplace. Also ask them if they didn’t see two or three fellow employees called in for the same session.
Here is a revolutionary idea, while the CJ is backing the expansion of the jury pool how about a few locals with vision and integrity back the expansion of the gene pool!
That has been actively in progress for a number of years. Haven’t you noticed the number of expat/Caymanian unions? My children are products of one.
U kidding — check the ever increasing numbers of kids & adoptions & marriages of the new status holders… the fiasco continues!!! Sorry CI
"As for being genetically related to half the island, that I can’t help …"
If you are genetically related to half the island, then that entire half would have to look at the other half of the island for mates, to avoid inbreeding. The children of those unions would then be genetically related to each and every other (non-expat) person on the island, since thier moms and dads are collectively related to everyone on the island, and no one could mate with anyone without some inbreeding going on.
This is a perfect argument why expats are actually useful in Cayman society.
That and they could serve on juries as well, calling a duck a duck like this kind Caymanian.
The other option would be to do away with the jury system altogether. Use a district or rotating judge/magistrate group that have little to no association with the local population.
Perhaps you’re forgotten why there is a jury system in the first place! smh
I am 37 and was NEVER called to jury duty.
I wholeheartedly agree with the need to expand the jury pool. Having been a juror last year, there were many occasions when all 70 or so potential jurors had to sit and watch as one by one, potential jurors were excused because of a direct connection with defendants, victims, witnesses and police. This is not only unnecessarily time consuming (as one of my co-jurors commented, it would have been interesting to have worked out the cost of each juror’s time, the judge’s, lawyers, clerks, police, witnesses time and whoever ele that may be involved), but is also incredibly inefficient.
In addition, I happen to know of a couple of individuals who specifically do not vote because they do not wish to be called for jury duty. There are many reactions to this statement and although I don’t approve of the stance these people take, having now performed jury duty, I can completely understand why they may wish to take it (and in light of the ridiculous choice of politicians we currently have am almost tempted to join them).
Broadening the jury selection pool to all those legally resident, would not only maximise the efficiency of the process, would also widen the net to include those Caymanians not currently in the pool and this would potentially have the effect of increasing the electoral roll to include some educated Caymanians who currently aren’t voting.
This may also encourage us all to move away fro m the "us" and "them" mentality and come together as one nation for the betterment of the nation and in my mind this shift in mentality will only ever be beneficial.
This would seem to be a win win situation for all.
There are obviously eligible candidates that have not been included in the selection group. Before we widen the service criteria, perhaps we could utilize the precise and recent Census Data to find those already eligible for the jury service pool?
I am 43. Have voted in every election I was eligible to – except the one which came the day after I gave birth – and have only be called to jury duty once.
I can’t believe you didn’t vote in that election. Shame on you.
I’m sure she voted, she doesn’t know for whom. Absentee ballots were specifically created for such situations. lol.
Have you ever noticed how many absentee ballots the "winners" deliver at each election?
Jury service is the fulfillment of a civic obligation and a valuable privilege in democratic societies. It would be difficult to oblige members of our transient population, without also examining the other democratic rights and privileges which are currently withheld from them. In good conscience, we can’t have it both ways.
No thanks. Why should expats be included in this when they never have a say in anything else?
They have the say in the office
The ‘bosses’ have the say in the office, as everywhere else.
The Chief Justice doesnt understand the problem and needs to improve the juditial system.
Many business and professional people do not register to vote because that consequently puts them on the jury list. The cases are so drawn out, forever interupted by adjournments, wasted hours due to late starts early finishes and days off to suit the lawyers other commitments, that being chosen for jury duty can ruin a small business. Subsequently the voting pool is also depleted of the better educated, allowing the quality of the political leadership to be compromised.
13.08 ‘…being chosen for jury duty can ruin a small business.’ How right you are! And having done jury duty as a business owner, who of necessity needs to be efficient to stay in business, I was struck by how minute a part of my time spent at the courts was actually as a functioning juror. I seemed to spend most of my time waiting around, having arrived early to avoid hefty fines, only to be instructed to go home, hours later. The experience gave me a whole new attitude towards criminals, whose actions waste so much of other people’s time and money. Attending a long trial would have been an unaffordable nightmare.
…. and if a jury which included "paper" Caymanians and general ‘Ex-pats’ finds an indigenous member of the community guilty…. what then? Local unrest? Retrial demands? Good luck with this one.
This is a fair point, though I’m sorry to have to say it. Either every non-citizen on the list must be allowed to refuse jury duty OR he must be given a cast-iron guarantee that his and his family’s Work Permits or other residency-status be safe for say five years. Otherwise, he would be at risk of punishment for an unpopular vote or comment. (Even with the guarantee, he and his family would always be at risk for some kind of retribution.)
The Chief Justice’s point is valid, but may not be practical.
" … OR he must be given a cast-iron guarantee that his and his family’s Work Permits or other residency-status be safe for say five years. …"
Surely you jest?
Gordon, every individual – Caymanian or not, would be exposed to some possibility of retribution as a result of jury duty.
Why should anyone be given an advantage over another in how to combat said retribution?
Actually, the non-citizen may already be at an advantage (having another country to which he could return / flee), whereas the native Caymanian will most likely be stuck within his country to face the bullying, bullets and machetes like a man.
Furthermore, I am quite disappointed with the level of support that your comment was been awarded thus far.
Says a lot though.
Surely you do not suggest that the risk and possible level of retribution is the same for Caymanians and for Expats?
The risks of retribution for Expats is much higher.
It seems to me that you have missed several points in this post.
It is true that all jurors, whatever their nationality, face retribution for acting as a juror. Gordon Barlow’s suggestion is not designed to reduce the general type of threat faced by all nationalities, but to prevent additional threats being used against non-Caymanians. Rather than seeking an advantage, the suggestion merely seeks to prevent non-Caymanians from being further disadvantaged and in a way all too common in Cayman.
As for non-Caymanians having the advantage of a second country to go to in the face of threats, the same is true of Caymanians if they complete the formalities required to allow them to live in the UK and by extension other EU countries. This option exists, so the playing field is level. Of course no-one wants to be forced to uproot simply because they fulfill their civic duty, but this applies to Caymanians and non-Caymanians alike.
I would not define someone who, through lack of choice ( in your argument if not in fact ) has to face the threat of physical violence as " a man." In truth this type of macho posturing leaves me cold, but in my book a "man" would be someone who, having an option to leave, does not and stays because he will not be intimidated.
"As for non-Caymanians having the advantage of a second country to go to in the face of threats, the same is true of Caymanians if they complete the formalities required to allow them to live in the UK and by extension other EU countries. This option exists, so the playing field is level".
Obviously the playing field is not level at all. Regardless of legal rights there is all the difference in the world between being required to be uprooted from your homeland, friends and relatives and go to a strange land with uncomfortably cold weather, an alien culture and possibly different language, and simply returning home to the familiar with friends and family around you.
The issue was whether Caymanians have a second country to move to to avoid threats. They do, as your post acknowledges, so in this respect the playing field is level and the original poster was wrong.
Thank you.
LMAO and cry me a river!
Turn this around a little:
Uncomfortably Hot, an alien culture, and speak a foreign language. It is "three o’clock" not "tree o’clock".
Just another excuse – typical!
How about instead of the fearfulness you have, you look at as a learning experience and a chance to grow beyond your small village. All the expats moved away from their friends/family and are living somewhere new. I’m guessing what you meant is that you have no confidence in your own ability to do so!
You left your country for whatever reason. The point is we don’t want to go where you don’t want to live. Yhuk! Yhuk! Everybody likes this weather – I hate the UK
A dead hero is better off than alive coward in your books but not in mine. Give me living any day
‘Actually, the non-citizen may already be at an advantage (having another country to which he could return / flee), whereas the native Caymanian will most likely be stuck within his country to face the bullying, bullets and machetes like a man.’
Basically …. that’s BS!
No person holds the monopoly on being an expat. I seem to remember that ‘being an expat’ was the mainstay of Cayman sea farer’s in the good, old bulk carrier days.
I am sure the pensions from those ‘expat’ careers held by Caymanians are still held in high regard.
The native Caymanian is in a lot better position than most as by extension, the British passport will open the door to 27 member states and give leave to remain in most. You will be surprised to know that currently, none of them suffer from a per capita crime or death rate as high as Cayman.
No person is held prisoner here, we all have a choice. I
If the going gets rough then people will leave. That may be why there are thousands of empty condo’s laying around.
Keep wearing the foil hat.
Indigenous in the Cayman Islands? Surely are none as they were only settled in the 16th Century… at the earliest and prior to that were unnihabited.
"Caymanian" is just a term for a Jamaican who has lived in Cayman long enough to feel able to want Jamaicans who have been for less time to leave.
You are confused. When have you seen unrest by locals?
The locals are in a massive state of unrest as we post today – they are just rather quiet about it. I keep hearing them say "We’re not going to take it anymore", but they do and they are very quiet about it, but that is not to be confused with them liking what is going on.
If I were one of the locals I’d be pissed about all of this and I’d be building a massive bonfire in an oil barrel on the steps of the Legislature, waving signs and yelling in protest until I was talked about by everyone, photographed and in the papers, on the TVs andmaybe arrested and in the papers as I then use the court process as a platform for ventilating my politics and raising awareness of my views…
… but I’m just an expat so I’m going for a beer instead.
Hey, I’m a Caymanian and have voted, I’ve never been convicted of a crime, I have no mental defect and yet I’ve never been called to act as a juror. As for being genetically related to half the island, that I can’t help but I believe I’ve always been fair in calling a duck a duck. Sounds to me like they are not looking at the list properly….
I heard they use the BOTC list, so if you were never formally Naturalized…
Count me out, I just came for the weather and the $$$$
Ka-Ching!
Who didn’t?
A Jury should be the amount of 9 persons and no less!
And secondly, they should have the right to not have their faces shown in Court. At least, have them attend, but behind a shaded glass where you can only see them from the shoulders down and not the face. I believe some measure like this, would protect Jurors from being intimidated.
Great idea! I hope it happens.
I think this is a good thing to widen the pool and those that are here with Permanent Residency should be asked to serve this should widen the pool considerably
This article is very useful – I was at the Court ceremony and do wish the CJ would speak up – I couldn’t make out a word he said