I join in debate on the Jury Amendment Bill 2023, which will make miscellaneous amendments to the Jury Act 1997. The bill has been introduced to make improvements in the operation and management of juries in the great State of New South Wales. The amendments emanate from a review led by the former Chief Judge of the District Court, the Hon. Justice Derek Price, of the processes around juries in the District and Supreme courts. The amendments will improve the efficiency of empanelling a jury and enhance support for jurors in the performance of their role. The bill also seeks to reduce the expenditure of resources on trials that are untimely aborted or result in hung juries. Essentially, the bill seeks to improve efficiency and ensure fairness in the way juries are conducted in this State.
The history of juries is quite interesting. They date back to ancient Greece. In the Athenian legal system, there was the concept of lay judges, who were known as dikastes. My pronunciation of ancient Greek is not good. If only the member for Rockdale was present in the Chamber, he could have helped me. Unfortunately, he is absent because of illness. I wish him a speedy recovery so he can return to this House and help me with my ancient Greek. We also have the concept of a jury in that all‑important document that became the platform for our democracy and legal system, Magna Carta 1215, which states:
No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.
That is where we get the concept of being judged by a jury of our peers. It is a fundamental pillar of our justice system. I commend this Government for seeking to improve the way juries work in New South Wales. The use of juries in New South Wales became standard practice for criminal trials in 1839 and in 1844 for civil trials. Unfortunately, the Magna Carta mentioned only free men, not free women. In the 1800s, only men who owned property or served in the military were eligible for jury service.
It was not until the Jury (Amendment) Act 1947 that women were allowed to take part in trials as jurors. Like many things, that is a fantastic development. For example, take this House tonight. The member for Liverpool is seated in the Chamber and the member for Drummoyne is in the chair. May the fairer sex continue to contribute more to our great State. Currently, the only people who are ineligible for jury service are certain public office holders who include, thankfully, members of Parliament, judicial officers and lawyers, people employed in certain public sector roles, people with serious criminal convictions, people who were undischarged bankrupts, and those do not have a firm understanding of the English language.
I turn now to the amendments in the bill. Items [1] to [6] and item [11] of schedule 1 to the bill will amend the Act to aid the efficient empanelling and selection of jurors. The amendments include clarifying when a juror should be exempted or excused from service, which will provide the courts and the coroner with greater discretion; empanelling additional and replacement jurors; and allowing a summons to be sent by email in certain circumstances. Through the introduction of email, we can gauge how far juries have come from ancient times to today, which is commendable.
Ms Charishma Kaliyanda: Still in ancient Greek?
Mr NATHAN HAGARTY: I do not believe emails were sent around the time of Magna Carta. There are several editions of Magna Carta and I saw one several years ago in the Federal Parliament. It is an amazing piece of history. I am very grateful to have seen it. Item [7] of schedule 1 removes an outdated technical requirement that the court make an order to permit a jury to separate in criminal trials. Item [8] of schedule 1 ensures that part-time employees have the same protections as full‑time employees and are not prejudiced by their employer when they attend jury service. Item [10] and item [11] of schedule 1 extend the powers of the sheriff to investigate improper conduct in relation to juries to support the integrity of the jury system. Those amendments seek to ensure that people are better able to conduct their duty as citizens.
I reflect on the many citizenship ceremonies that I have attended in my capacity as a member of Parliament. I have the privilege of representing three local government areas within the electorate of Leppington—Liverpool, Camden and Campbelltown—so I attend plenty of citizenship ceremonies. When I get to speak at them, usually in Camden and Campbelltown—they do not usually get me to speak in Liverpool for some reason—I tell people that one of the most important things is for them to conduct and execute their role as a citizen, which includes being a juror and voting. That is a special privilege. We often talk about the importance of voting, but we should also reflect on the importance of being a member of a jury and judging our peers.
When bringing anything to this House, it is important to engage with stakeholders. I am happy to report that the Government has engaged with stakeholders and consulted widely as part of the amendments in the bill. The Department of Communities and Justice consulted heads of jurisdiction, other members of the judiciary and key government and legal stakeholders during both the statutory review that I mentioned earlier and in the development of the bill in particular. That included extensive consultation with the stakeholders responsible for overseeing and managing the selection and operation of juries, including the Sheriff's Office, the District Court and the Supreme Court. Further consultation was undertaken on the drafting and final form of the bill.
In short, the bill is an important piece of legislation that ensures that justice is improved and made more efficient and that we do not suffer from circumstances where cases are aborted due to issues with the jury. All members in this place want justice to work efficiently and effectively. The bill will go a long way for things like hung juries and ensuring that the right people are on juries. I commend the bill to the House.
