CHAPTER 7: COMPENSATION FOR JURY SERVICE
The consultation stated:
Whilst the system of allowances currently in place compares not unfavourably with comparable compensation available in many other jurisdictions, the Government is keenly aware of the hardship that jury duty - particularly over a long period - can impose on members of the public. The paper draws attention to other jurisdictions which have moved away from an allowance-based approach; and invites comments on these. It sets out various possible options for changes to the scope and operation of juror allowances, aimed at minimising hardship whilst recognising overall constraints on public expenditure. The Government has an open mind on this aspect and would welcome views. Changes to the allowances regime would be a matter for administrative rather than legislative reform.
The consultation asked:
Q8: WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS AND DRAWBACKS OF A SYSTEM SUCH AS THE ONE ADOPTED IN IRELAND WHICH TRANSFERS THE COST OF JURY SERVICE TO EMPLOYERS AND LIFTS THE BURDEN OF SERVICE FROM THE SELF-EMPLOYED WHERE THEIR LIVELIHOODS CAN BE SHOWN TO BE AT RISK? IS SUCH A SYSTEM LIKELY IN YOUR VIEW TO SERVE THE INTERESTS OF ECONOMY AND OF JUSTICE?
In total, twenty respondents (34%) addressed this question. Of these, 65% opposed any move towards an Irish model of compensation for jury service; one further consultee argued against transferring the cost of jury service to employers but agreed with the Irish system with regard to self-employed people; 20% supported further consideration of the Irish system; and 2 respondents provided commentary only.
Under the Irish system, employers must pay their employees for the time they spend on jury duty, and self-employed workers are entitled to apply for excusal from jury service if they can show that serving would prevent them from earning a living. Respondents arguing against this model represented a range of individuals and organisations including members of the public. Their arguments are below listed in order of mention from most frequent to less frequent:
- Could create hardship for employers particularly in the current economic recession
- Could make employers put pressure on employees to seek an excusal
- Jury service is a state duty and the state should pay for it
- Potential loss of self-employed people from the juror pool
- Savings made would be more than offset by increased administrative costs
- May create unhelpful division between employed people and those who are self-employed
- More complicated than at present
- Unequal impact on different employers with the random selection of potential jurors
- Employers might place pressure on juror to speed up deliberations in order to return to work
(" This may impair the individual's ability to function as an effective juror if they are under pressure to return to work" (Leg))
Of the four respondents who generally favoured giving the Irish model more consideration, 3 were members of the clergy with the fourth being an academic.
The consultation asked:
Q9: IF A CHOICE HAD TO BE MADE, ON GROUNDS OF AFFORDABILITY, BETWEEN GRANTING EARLIER ACCESS TO THE LONGER TRIALS RATE AND BOOSTING THAT RATE, WHICH OF THESE - LESS COMPENSATION BUT EARLIER, OR HIGHER COMPENSATION BUT LATER - DO YOU THINK IS MORE IMPORTANT?
Seventeen respondents (29%) addressed this question. Of these, only 9 expressed clear support for one of the two options posed in the question, with 4 (Pub, Pub, Leg, Oth Rep) favouring earlier access to the longer trials rate, and the remaining 5 (Ch, Ch, Ch, Leg, Leg) supporting higher compensation but later. One further consultee argued against the latter option in terms of the potential higher cost to employers should they have to foot this bill in future (Oth Bod).
Other respondents provided relevant commentary without supporting or ruling out the options tabled. One urged that a balance between the two options be worked out (Leg); others argued for greater discretion to compensate for actual financial loss (Leg, Pub); another suggested that a simple system of a flat rate per day be introduced (Med). One view was to allow jurors to opt for the system they preferred (Leg); another was to seek the opinions of those jurors who have served previously on long trials (Acad).
The consultation asked:
Q10: SHOULD THOSE FEW JURORS WHO SERVE ON THE VERY LONGEST TRIALS RECEIVE ENHANCED COMPENSATION FOR LOSSES INCURRED (BEARING IN MIND THAT THIS WOULD INEVITABLY DEPRESS TO SOME EXTENT THE RESOURCES AVAILABLE FOR THE GENERALITY OF JURORS)?
Eighteen respondents (30%) addressed this question. Of these, the vast majority (89%) agreed that jurors who serve on the very longest trials should received enhanced compensation for losses incurred, with the remaining two consultees suggesting that this be decided on a case by case basis (Ch) or be dependent on the employment circumstances of the juror (e.g. whether they are paid a fixed wage or by performance related bonus) (Leg).
A few of those supporting the notion of enhanced compensation suggested that this was desirable not only to recompense for actual monetary loss, but also to redress what they saw as the disruption and stress generated by the longest trials. One consultee (Oth Rep) agreed with the proposal but remarked that this situation arises in few cases. Another (Leg) argued that enhanced compensation should be paid in only " exceptional circumstances", where jurors are seriously financially disadvantaged, but with the funding being found from new money so as not to deplete the resources generally available for jurors.
The consultation asked:
Q11: DO YOU AGREE THAT THE INTRODUCTION OF AN ADULT DEPENDANT CARER ALLOWANCE WOULD BE A VALUABLE ADDITION TO THE SUITE OF JUROR ALLOWANCES? ARE THERE ANY OTHER ALLOWANCES FOR REGULAR EXPENSES THAT YOU THINK SHOULD BE CONSIDERED (NB CHILDCARE EXPENSES - BOTH PRE-SCHOOL AND OUT OF SCHOOL - ARE ALREADY REIMBURSED)?
Nineteen respondents (32%) addressed this question. Of these, all but one agreed that the introduction of an adult dependant carer allowance would be a valuable addition to the suite of juror allowances. The remaining consultee provided relevant commentary only.
It was argued (Leg, Leg) that as childcare expenses were already reimbursed, the introduction of an adult dependant carer allowance was a logical next step. Two respondents (Leg, Oth Rep) remarked that this allowance would be particularly important if the juror upper age limit was increased to 70 years.
A common theme amongst 3 members of the public was that financial reimbursement alone did not compensate for caring responsibilities, the most difficult aspects of which could be the unpredictability of the care needed, the nature of that care and the time needed to organise the care.
Only one respondent (Leg) made any substantive suggestions for other potential allowances for jurors. These related to payments to those travelling considerable distances and for the care of jurors' livestock in some circumstances, but at the discretion of the relevant sheriff clerk.
SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS
- Most (65%) of those who provided a view opposed any move to an Irish model of compensation for jury service.
- The most common argument made by respondents against the Irish model was that this could create hardship for employers who may put pressure on employees to seek excusals.
- There were mixed views on whether earlier access should be granted to the longer trials rate compensation to jurors or higher compensation introduced but paid later.
- The vast majority (89%) of those who provided a view agreed that jurors who serve on the very longest trials should receive enhanced compensation for losses incurred.
- All but one of the 19 respondents who provided a view stated that they supported the introduction of an adult dependant carer allowance.