Jury out at Ennis Circuit

TWO scheduled sittings of the Circuit Court in Clare had to be adjourned this week after just 35 of 250 people summoned for jury duty in the criminal court turned up for service, while a civil sitting scheduled for Kilrush was adjourned as the assigned judge was unavailable.

The trial of five men on violent disorder charges was due to open in Ennis Circuit Criminal Court on Tuesday. However, when selection began, all but 10 members of the jury panel present were deemed ineligible to sit, leaving the jury short two people.
It emerged that of 250 summonses issued for jury service, just 35 people attended court to carry out their civic duty.
This situation prompted presiding Judge Leonie Reynolds to recommend the imposition of sanctions on those who had failed to appear or make contact with the circuit court office.
“The word needs to go out that people must answer their jury summons. We are in a situation where none of the trials listed for this week will be able to proceed and we would only be putting additional costs on the State if we adjourned until tomorrow.
“I am recommending that the people who fail to appear would be sanctioned. If people are not taking their duty seriously when called to serve on a jury then there is no other alternative and the appropriate sanction has to apply,” she said.
A spokesperson for the circuit court office explained that a minimum of 60 to 70 people always attend out of the 250 people summoned for jury duty each week there are criminal trials. She said, in her experience, this was the first time the number was as low as 35.
The Clare Champion also learned that a high proportion of people summoned for jury duty who contacted the circuit office were excluded from service.
It is understood that approximately 10% of those summoned did not make any attempt to contact the court office and did not arrive on Tuesday morning as they were summoned to do. 
The difficulty with the low numbers on the jury panel became evident when a jury was to be sworn in for a week-long trial of five people charged with violent disorder.
As the five defendants each had the right to challenge up to seven jurors, if it had materialised, it would have exhausted the entire jury panel.
As it transpired, 13 challenges were made in the course of the jury selection, while a further 12 were deemed ineligible to serve for a variety of reasons. This left just 10 jurors available and as a result of the shortfall, the case could not proceed.
Barrister Michael Collins, who acted in another case listed for hearing on Tuesday, argued that the court could not embark on his clients’ trial until there was clarity on the last case where there were just 10 jurors.
Judge Reynolds informed him that the 10 empanelled jurors would be released into the jury panel on the basis that the initial trial could not proceed and would therefore be eligible to serve on another jury if a second trial could proceed.
However, Mr Collins stressed that “the number on the panel is not representative to form a jury of my clients’ peers”.
“This is a case of three men who stand accused, if it was opened there would be 21 jurors open to challenge, so I would say it could not form a representative jury and my clients are entitled to a jury of their peers. The panel is simply too small,” he said.
State Prosecutor, Stephen Coughlan, BL, requested a brief adjournment to liaise with the court office with a view to coming to a consensus on what to do with the remaining cases listed for trial and whether it would be possible to increase the jury panel.
However, “an incident” which occurred during this short adjournment of 45 minutes was deemed to have “contaminated” the members of the jury panel present for duty.
On the resumption of the court sitting Mr Coughlan said, “I have discussed matters and we are in a position not only where justice has to be done but where justice has to be seen to be done. The present jury panel of 35 out of 250 have been contaminated due to events outside the court room. Of the seven cases that remain on the list, all but two have to do with acts of violence. Also, I take the point of Mr Collins that 35 people are not representative of a jury of the accused men’s peers. What I propose to do is to ask the remaining jury panel to come in tomorrow”.
He said of the 215 who did not attend, the court office had made contact with five and he suggested if broadcasts were made on local radio reminding the panel of their duty and that failure to attend would result in sanction then “the turnout could be such that we can try some case on the list”.
However, after further discussion, it was determined that this would not be an option and the best approach was to adjourn the week’s trials.
At the conclusion, Judge Reynolds commented, “There can be no reality of a trial proceeding when 35 of 250 people who received jury summonses turn up. Even with the best will in the world we would be lucky to get another 35 people tomorrow and counsel would be entitled to say that it was not a representative group.
“I understand it is unprecedented and that it has not happened here before but people need to be made aware that sanctions will be issues where those summoned do not appear in court. It is every person’s duty to attend court.”
Meanwhile, a civil sitting of the Circuit Court, due to take place on Tuesday in Kilrush, had also to be adjourned. It is understood that cases in another jurisdiction overtook matters listed for the Kilrush sitting and as a result, the presiding judge was unavailable.