Rafael Hui trial highlights the importance of jury service

The discharging of the jury in the Rafael Hui corruption trial before it has even started has, unsurprisingly, led to questions being asked about the nature of our city's jury system. Surely, people are saying, there must be a better way of doing things.

But the development comes as no surprise to those familiar with the difficulties involved in staging long-running trials.

Jurors are ordinary people plucked from their normal lives and thrust into a court drama in which they will have to make the most important decision - the verdict. Jury service usually lasts only two weeks. But this high-profile corruption trial could run for four months. How many people can, at short notice, put aside their jobs, family commitments, travel plans and health problems for such a long period of time?

This is why it is normal for judges in such cases to entertain requests from jurors who do not wish to participate. It is a delicate balancing act for the judge. As Mr Justice Andrew Macrae said on Monday, mere inconvenience is not a sufficient excuse. Jury service naturally inconveniences just about everyone eligible to sit. The system would break down if it became too easy for jurors to avoid service.

On the other hand, no judge wants to have an unhappy juror. A fair trial depends on jurors paying attention to the evidence. If a juror is sick, stressed about being absent from work or seething because he had to give up a dream holiday, it is better to find another one without such distractions.

There is always a danger that a juror or two will have to drop out during a long trial. The court can't afford to risk running out of jurors and having to start all over again. At least five jurors are required by law, but it is preferable to have seven or more, especially in such a high-profile case. It is easy to see why the court would rather start the trial with a full set of nine healthy jurors, rather than allowing some to depart before it begins.