Civic organisations and human rights activists have long complained of a flawed process in the country's justice system that has resulted in the rise of a cadre of 'professional jurors', meaning persons who are repeatedly empanelled to serve and who have an interest, sometimes financial compensation, in being called.

A judge in the Supreme Court, Justice Lennox Campbell, appeared to have given tacit support to their claims last week when he ordered Coroner Patrick Murphy to pay legal costs for a new inquest relating to the police shooting of a 20-year-old man.

In supporting an application from the man's mother that the jury's verdict be quashed, the judge found that some jurors had been selected repeatedly to serve over a nine-month period.

Justice Campbell was concerned that the registrar of the courts should ensure that panels for service be so made up that "all jurors shall be summoned equally." That is, the registrar shall not place any juror on the panel a second time, until all the jurors have been placed once on the panel.

Coroner Patrick Murphy's defence was that "some jurors are repeated due to the perennial difficulty in securing the attendance of suitable persons as jurors."

Notwithstanding the general reluctance of persons to serve as jurors, it does not serve the cause of justice well to have a pool of persons who make themselves available or seem more willing to serve on a repeat basis. Greater effort must be made to weed out those who are overly eager to serve. It opens the door more easily to corruption and the miscarriage of justice.

Some persons in other jurisdictions have indeed argued for the use of real professional jurors, that is persons who are trained and paid to work as jurors. But this goes against the grain of ideal jury service - that any member of the general public stands as good a chance as anyone else being called upon to perform a civic duty - and not for reward.

On the other hand, persons who have brought cases against the state in the Coroner's Court should not assume that when verdicts go against their wishes that this is because jurors have a predisposition to favour the state or its agents. Sometimes, arguments and evidence are badly presented.

Of course, jurors are expected to examine the facts of each case and the law as presented. Their unfamiliarity with special subjects may be good - the arrogance of the know-it-all gets in the way of objectivity. But specialist knowledge may also enhance, in certain circumstances, an appreciation of the nuances of arguments and evidence presented.

The ideal should remain, however, that all members of the jury panel should learn the facts of a particular case at the same time, thus leading them to a greater likelihood of impartiality.

Jury service should remain a civic duty which any member of the public can perform subject to their mental capacity. Justice Campbell's ruling should help to bring greater scrutiny to the empanelling of jurors and thereby enhancing the court system's ability to provide justice.

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.