A verdict on the jury

Reports have appeared on the media about a case before the European Court of Human Rights due to be heard on May 24 regarding my protestations at being unfairly burdened with the duties of juror for many years.

Article 603 of the Criminal Code says, inter alia :603. (1) Every person of the age of 21 years or upwards, residing in Malta and being a citizen of Malta, shall be qualified to serve as a juror provided such person has an adequate knowledge of the Maltese language, is of good character and is competent to serve as a juror.

While article 605 says:

605. (1) The Commissioner of Police, together with two magistrates and the Registrar of Courts, shall, in the month of August of each year, draw up to the best of their knowledge - (a) a list of persons duly qualified and sufficiently competent to serve as jurors for the trial of Maltese speaking persons...

Every six months or so, the Electoral Commission publishes a list of over 250,000 Maltese citizens together with their address and the year of their registration, near enough in the vast majority of cases, their year of birth. These lists contain also those citizens who are over 18 but under 21 years of age and who are therefore unqualified to act as jurors.

I have been called to serve as juror each and every year since 1971.

From 1971 up to a few years ago, females were automatically exempted from serving as jurors in Malta unless they specifically applied to serve. So ignoring women, and removing MPs, judges, teachers, village chemists, university lecturers, bankrupts, and criminals, the lists should have contained over 100,000 names each. During these years the published list for potential jurors contained up to about 3,000 names.

Therefore, on a strict mathematical basis and ignoring luck of the draw, I should have served about once every 33 years. If one is on the list every year for 30 years, then one has been called about 1,000 times more than one should have been. To add insult to injury, for many years, the lists contained the names of people who had emigrated to Canada years before.

The jury selection committee do not do what the law requires of them. They have a list, and every year, instead of doing a proper job, they send a circular to all police stations asking for suggestions to replace those who have died, so if you have had a tiff with a local policeman, he might very easily get his own back by submitting your details.

On the other hand, there is an easy way to get off the list. Get a friendly police officer to have you struck off. Many, including me, would consider this to be infra dig.

It appears to me that it is not I who have not done my civic duty but the jury selection committee.

At one stage I decided I had had enough and proceeded to ignore court notices calling on me to attend as juror. Sure enough, I got fined, Lm100, but did not pay the fine. So I got called to court to pay the fine or go to prison.

I went to court and through my lawyer protested that I was being discriminated against.

The judge rejected the Advocate General's submission that my request was frivolous and vexatious and the case went to the First Hall Civil Court. I lost the case. I appealed.

The Court of Appeal decided to confirm the Lm100 fine as I should not have ignored the court but directed the jury selection committee to use a more equitable way to select jurors. This case was decided on November 2, 2001. I paid the Lm100 fine.

In 2003, I was again selected as foreman juror for Maltese speaking accused and ordinary juror for English speaking accused. Up till then I had not used the university exemption as I was making a stand on principle; but I did not want to participate in what I hold to be a travesty of justice, so I applied to the court to be exempted as I was a full-time university lecturer and this exemption should have been granted according to law; but it was refused.

In the meantime I had appealed to the European Court in Strasbourg. The European Court asked whether I had used up all local remedies. The Advocate General replied to the court that I could have been exempted as a full-time university lecturer. I blithely replied to the European Court that in fact I had so applied, but I was refused.

Again in 2004 I was on the list of juror foremen for Maltese speakers and juror for English speakers. So it appears to me that the directives of the Appeal Court have been ignored by the jury selection committee.

I have been called to appear in the local criminal court on various dates in May 2005. Again I have applied to be exempted.

In the meantime, I am to appear before the European Court on May 24, one of the days when I am also supposed to be in the court in Malta to serve as juror.

Some further points about the reports, which appeared in The Times (April 27), The Malta Independent on Sunday (April 24) and also on di-ve.com (April 26), although in all three cases the reports were not instigated by me:

1. It is not that three per cent of women and 96.95 per cent of men are jurors but that of jurors, 3.6 per cent are women and 96 per cent are men. A subtle difference in language but an enormous difference in meaning.

2. A major point is that of the 100 per cent available and potential jurors, that is, all people over the age of 21, but exempting MPs, criminals, bankrupts and a few others, (leaving, I reckon, well over 200,000 people) 3.4 per cent carry the can while 96.6 per cent are not called upon to do their duty. This is an abysmal failure on the part of the jury selection committee, composed of two magistrates, the Police Commissioner and the Registrar of Courts.

Incidentally, the 3.4 per cent basically refers to pre-1997, when women were exempted, unless they specifically asked to serve as jurors. So it's 3.4 per cent of about 100,000 people. Even among those 3.4 per cent there have been occasions where there were people who had been in Canada, after emigrating, for about 20 years, so they do not turn up when called, making it even more onerous on the remainder.

3. The accused is to be judged by a panel of equals. This is not achieved if the same people are always selected to be jurors.

4. I hold that a judge sitting in a court of law has a duty to see that justice is done and that the accused are judged, as to the facts, by a panel of their equals as required by law. If a court is contemptible, then I don't mind being in contempt.

5. The injustice is compounded when a woman is an accused or is a victim of an accused, for example, in a rape case, and the judge, the prosecutor and the jurors are all male. This is why I hold that this is not justice but a travesty of justice. How many female accused, or female victims of the accused, have been unable to get their point of view across to an all-male jury in an all-male court?

In fact, the Court of Appeal appreciated my submission that the distortion in the natural balance between male and female would produce negative effects in that, socially, the lack of a female input in the trial of an accused, male or female, would have a bad effect "in that it promotes male-oriented conclusions untempered by the female point of view", but went on to state that this is a matter which applies only to the accused and cannot be used by a male juror to justify his refusal to serve as a juror when called upon to do so (my translation).

Obviously, I do not agree with the latter part of the court's opinion.

I also believe that my stand may have had some influence in the change of the law which has resulted in more women being on the list of jurors, although still not to the extent I believe is required by law, as my constitutional case on the installation of a satellite dish empowered people to enjoy satellite television, albeit at a fee, well before Malta's admission to the EU.

6. People do not seem to care unless they are personally involved or are themselves victims. I believe I have done the right thing by standing up to be counted. I will take the case to the European Court, at not inconsiderable expense, but whatever that court decides, I will stop there. I will have done my duty to the best of my ability and it will then be up to others to see that justice is done.

This is the situation at the moment.