By EARYEL BOWLEG

Tribune Staff Reporter

ebowleg@tribunemedia.net

DEFENCE lawyers oppose eliminating jury trials, saying the diverse backgrounds of jurors make the system preferable.

The current and three former chief justices emphasised the benefits of bench trials last week, highlighting their efficiency, among other things.

However, defence lawyer David Cash noted yesterday that many cases come down to the "credibility or believability of the police’s oral testimony," which he said jurors might assess differently from judges.

"The police interact with members of different communities differently," he said. "There are wealthy communities that are meant to be protected and poorer communities that are meant to be policed. Judges don’t live in those communities where the police kick down doors and shoot dogs. Judges do not experience the type of interactions with police that ordinary members of the public endure.”

“Also, there are troublesome incentives associated with judge-only trials. A government may be tempted to give extensions to judges who convict at a higher rate or give promotions to appellate courts to judges who convict more often. The jury system needs to be bolstered and not abandoned.”

Another attorney, Ian Cargill, suggested the small size of The Bahamas makes it best not to have one's future left "to the mercy of one".

"It's dangerous," he said.

Court of Appeal president Sir Michael Barnett argued during an event marking the 25th anniversary of the Eugene Dupuch Distinguished Lecture last week that jurors of “humble origins” may not be able to fully grasp complicated matters like complex fraud cases.

Attorney Romona Farquharson called this a poor assumption yesterday.

“I don't see why there's a feeling that they would, the average populace or persons who have been selected to a jury, be backward in some way and not able to understand the concept of fraud or stealing," she said.

“We have to be so careful in not wanting to just throw the baby out with the bathwater because when you're talking about your jurors, those are persons who ought to have the same sort of demographic, sort of background, and who can somewhat understand you and make that determination with that sort of thinking and understanding in mind.”

She noted that compared to jurors, judges sometimes come from more affluent backgrounds than defendants.

Another defence lawyer, Bjorn Ferguson, believes jury trials should remain for indictable offences like murder, but supports giving people the option of a bench trial in some instances, noting this exists in the Magistrates Court for summary matters.

“Normally, the jurors can’t follow the evidence or can’t follow the flow of the trial, and so that could be unfair both to the defendant and to the prosecution," he said.

Attorney General Ryan Pinder said on Sunday that the government is unlikely to put forward a constitutional referendum concerning jury trials, a constitutional right.