Televised trials the answer to an outdated system
With few exceptions, jury service is a statutory obligation of every able citizen of good character. When selected as a juror, a person will carry, as the judiciary's jury guide says, a 'personal responsibility to ensure that justice is done'. Given such a weighty duty, every juror is entitled to query why some citizens enjoy exemption.
Consider Mr Justice Woo Kwok-hing's excuse for the exemption of judges ('Law panel calls for wider jury pool', January 29). 'Because of his knowledge of law, a judge serving as a juror may not listen to the trial judge ... He may encourage other members of the jury to disregard what the trial judge says.'
The gist of what Mr Justice Woo said is that jurors may disregard the trial judge's direction on evidence and law because it is not necessarily correct. If the jury must abide by bench direction, the court may as well bring such direction to its own conclusion and do without the jury.
If legal correctness is the overriding concern, the judiciary should conscript legal professionals into jury service and spare lay folks. Legal professionals are excluded from jury service because jury trials are meant for the court to understand and adopt lay representatives' idea of justice - not for jurors to follow the court's version of justice.
Jury trials which selectively bring lay citizens into the court are an outdated institution much criticised nowadays. The judiciary can better legitimise its rulings if it reaches out to the public by televising hearings. Some jurisdictions are televising their trials. Does our judiciary have the courage to follow suit?