Evidence of meeting #81 for Justice and Human Rights in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was jurors.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON
Thank you very much.
Ms. De Moura, that Ashley Smith inquiry was very important on a number of different levels in what it exposed and what it focused on, and I just can't let this go. I've probably used up my time, but I want to publicly thank you for being a part of it. For this country to have that here was extremely important.
Liberal
Liberal
Randy Boissonnault Liberal Edmonton Centre, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to thank all the witnesses for appearing today.
One of the things I've learned listening to the study so far is how we force jurors to cut themselves off from normal support systems. I know we face that sometimes as members of Parliament as well, and so for full transparency, I have part of my support system here today with me. It's my mom, Shirley, who's in the room from Alberta.
I want to ask some questions about resources, because if we're lucky, we could see changes to legislation come out of this study.
We're going to make a call for resources. Those need to get into people's hands, and I've asked some of the other witnesses how long it would take for this system to get ready to handle the jurors who would need to seek psychological support. Ms. De Moura, yours was compelling testimony level 10, so thank you very much.
In 2015 Alberta was the first province to provide a support system for jurors, and it includes counselling that's available to jurors during the trial and after. There are also mechanisms for exceptional measures to address the needs of former jurors. Would that type of a program have helped you in your process as a juror?
Liberal
Randy Boissonnault Liberal Edmonton Centre, AB
In your testimony, you also recommended time to prepare. What kind of early warning systems or signals would you have liked to know about that you experienced as a juror?
As an Individual
One of the first things that happened was nightmares of choking in my sleep. It was something as simple as that. I just thought I was having a nightmare. I wasn't linking it to the case, even though she choked herself with ligatures.
As I mentioned, it could just be something simple that could trigger awareness. Right at the outset of the case, if the detective or the coroner had said, “Here's some information. You might not recognize it now, but maybe one, two, or three months down the road....”, it might have triggered me to go back to a leaflet or a poster in the room or...anything.
Liberal
Randy Boissonnault Liberal Edmonton Centre, AB
You would have been able to understand where it was coming from.
Liberal
Randy Boissonnault Liberal Edmonton Centre, AB
I appreciate that.
How much time would you have liked to have had to prepare before the jury process began?
As an Individual
I think it was about a month I had, from the time I was interviewed until the trial actually started. I honestly had no idea what I would be doing.
As an Individual
Maybe it would have been helpful if the detective had told us what we could expect.
You and four other people on the jury stand with you go into a little room, and as soon as you come into the building every single day, you don't leave. The detective is with you the whole time. You're in a tiny little room with four other women, in my case. The washrooms are in the same room where you eat and read evidence. It's not normal. Nobody told me that in advance. The dynamic between the five of us women changed from the outset to the very end. I had no idea what I was getting into.
Liberal
Liberal
Randy Boissonnault Liberal Edmonton Centre, AB
That's helpful. Thank you.
To Drs. Chopra and Jaffe, and then Mr. Zaborowski, I'm looking for some guidance in terms of ranking the recommendations to focus on the prevention of trauma.
We're going to have cleanup to do if the trauma happens, but how do we prevent as much trauma as possible from happening? We've heard everything from preparing jurors to counselling during and after. We've heard about screening jurors for those who are psychologically resilient enough to go through the process, and the more traumatic the trial, the more resilience we need. Then also, judges need to be supported and educated.
How do we rank those or other recommendations you have, given limited resources?
Let's start with Dr. Jaffe.
Professor, Faculty of Education, Western University, As an Individual
A lot of these recommendations wouldn't be expensive and could be immediate. For example, starting tomorrow, there could be a pretty good brochure provided.
I know there's experience in Alberta. If you look at the King County brochure, you see it wouldn't take a lot just to make sure to provide one to every juror going into a case that involves sources of trauma, such as the graphic evidence around violence and abuse and homicides, notwithstanding that all jurors are going to experience some stress. I do think we could have a brochure done overnight almost for every province and territory.
Debriefing could cost, in terms of trying to make sure there are mental health professionals who are qualified. I think you've heard evidence about unqualified professionals asking somebody to watch a sad movie, and that's going to be it. Certainly having a licensed professional with background in trauma is obviously going to be a cost for provinces and territories, but that should be affordable in most provincial and territorial budgets.
Ongoing counselling would be my third priority. It's going to be a minority of jurors; based on the research, you're probably looking at 10% of jurors, or less, who are going to require ongoing counselling.
Those would be my three priorities.
I have a caution that could lead to a debate, but I'll take my chances here. I would worry about asking about resilience. If somebody gets called for jury duty, they're going to be given some information about the nature of the case. I'd hate to start screening out people because they're sensitive. You wouldn't want to have all the jurors to be people who are so desensitized or feel they're so strong that they can handle the evidence. I would suggest that we don't go down that road. If a juror has a particular problem or issue, I'd certainly welcome them to raise it in an appropriate forum, but I wouldn't want to screen out jurors for past trauma by itself.
Liberal
Randy Boissonnault Liberal Edmonton Centre, AB
That's a good balance to that argument.
Could Dr. Chopra comment, and then Mr. Zaborowski?
Chopra Koonan Litigation Consulting, As an Individual
I know there's a concern about expanding jury selection in Canada. You hear the horror stories in the United States about jury selection going on for days and weeks, and people trying to craft a certain jury. I don't agree with that assessment, but I'm also not suggesting that you go to an open inquiry of jurors. I do think, however, that in certain types of cases in which someone has been a victim of a similar crime, that person is not automatically excluded, even in the United States, but has an opportunity to talk about whether they feel that they are able to separate their own personal experiences from the decision-making in that case.
I've had a number of instances of a juror saying, “Yes, I'm fine; I can put it aside”, and then finding out in deliberations, once they see the evidence and start hearing the testimony, that they have to be excused. Sometimes that causes problems with mistrials and whatnot. Just having the information.... It goes back to making sure they're informed. Ultimately you can let the juror make the decision if it's something that they think they can do or not do.
I'm not talking just generally. Very few people are going to say, “Yes, I'm great with hearing about child abuse.” It's really more those people who have had a personal experience that will make it hit so close to home for them that they're not going to be able to separate their emotional response from the decision-making. Among the jurors I spoke to in Canada, even though they were not able to get into the specifics, there were several who make it clear that there was someone who had experienced something in their past that was preventing them from being able to be a juror in the case.
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Thank you very much, Chair.
Ms. De Moura, I want to echo my colleague Mr. Nicholson and thank you personally for your service and to assure you, I think on behalf of all my colleagues around this table, that we will take your testimony and that of the jurors who preceded you very seriously. I think it's going to form a very important part of our report and the recommendations we deliver to the government. Thank you for making the effort and the courage you have shown today.
In previous testimony we've heard about the compensation that jurors have received. Of course, it varies quite widely. In some jurisdictions they may not get compensated for the first 10 days. In others, it amounts to $50 a day.
What are your thoughts, first of all, on the compensation you personally received and how that may broadly affect jurors across the country in terms of the value we're placing on the work they are doing?
As an Individual
I believe for the first 10 days there was no pay. Then I think there was maybe $10 a day up to the next 100 days. Then after 100 days, it's $100 a day. It's something like that. Please don't quote me.
In terms of value, it wasn't much. As I said, I treated it like a job, but I also was proud to do my civic duty. From what I hear around this table, what I did was important, and I felt that way at the time, absolutely. Is $100 a day the right value? For an eight-hour workday, that's not much. Is it minimum wage? I can't do math in my head right now.
It was lucky for me at that time that I worked for the federal government, so I had an income, but if I think of all the people who are on jury duty who aren't getting paid, that's a problem. How do you survive? How do you make ends meet, especially if you have children or something like that?
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
What do you think it does to our selection of juries when some people have that income stability and are able to comfortably serve on a jury, while others do not? What do you think that does to the cross-section of society we're asking to serve when some can't afford to serve on a jury? You're really being judged by your peers, but if you're limiting the number of people from society who can actually judge you, what do you think that does to being judged fairly and effectively by your peers?
As an Individual
I think it will cause a lot of pressure on the jurors who can't afford to be there. I feel if you say you can't do jury duty when you go through the selection process, you're not bringing the proper cross-section, because we want the right demographic. We want people from all economic backgrounds. Maybe this person who can't afford to go on jury duty is a perfect candidate to be a juror and will make great recommendations or great decisions.
I think maybe there needs to be a little more value on the work that is being done, because it's hard. It's not just nine to five, and it's really long-lasting.
