Justice Committee on Feb. 8th, 2018

[Prof. Cheryl Thomas]

There is no special contract between the Samaritans and government because Samaritans are available, as I said, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, for anyone to call, for any reason. In effect, they agreed to partner with the court service to make that information available for jurors.

You raise a really important issue about training for the Samaritans. I've been working with the Samaritans in central London to train a small group of Samaritans who have a particular interest in juries, so that they better understand the rules that jurors are under, including the confidentiality rules and so on, and who does jury service and what possible stresses and strains they might come across. That's at very early stages.

I hope that in the future there will be, in effect, a separate group of trained Samaritans available on the phone any time around the country on a separate phone number that would be called a “juror helpline“, so that those calls would just go to those Samaritans who are trained in that issue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Hannaford-Agor, I have a question about the United States. We're looking at how different provinces in Canada have started adopting programs related to support and to providing mental health counselling for jurors post trial. Are you aware of any U.S. states that have implemented a system whereby jurors systematically get a notice at the end of the trial, saying that this is a support service they should call? Are there any that you would recommend as a best practice?

[Paula Hannaford-Agor]

Unfortunately, that's probably the area where implementation has not worked so well, because it tends to be very ad hoc. Texas and Alaska have both enacted legislation that essentially grants the local clerk of court the authority to create a mental health or a juror support program, but it doesn't actually require them to do so nor does it provide any funding for them to do so. It's really been undertaken on a court-by-court basis, by either a judge or a clerk of court who has been particularly concerned about this issue and has reached out to do this.

Again, it depends an awful lot on the judicial training, and whether or not the judges and the court staff are aware that jurors are experiencing difficulty in a particular trial and know that these resources exist. There are often some gaps in how these services get rolled out. Even where they exist, they tend to be underutilized.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

I have one last question for you as an expert in jury issues, and perhaps the professor wants to answer this as well. There have been some discussions here, and I think it's universally agreed amongst all parties here that there has to be support provided to jurors post trial.

There have been some witnesses who have come forward to us and talked about the need for support during the trial, allowing jurors speak to mental health professionals during the trial. There's a lot of concern, of course, about that influencing the jury. I'm just interested to hear your viewpoint on that issue and whether or not, if someone comes forward during the trial, saying they're having serious issues, they should simply be excused and replaced by an alternate, or should they actually be given some ability to speak to a counsellor?

[Paula Hannaford-Agor]

I've heard judges who have talked about this. I think the universal consensus here in the United States is that it would be interference with the jury process itself to have anyone reaching out to the jurors. If the juror were experiencing such high stress, it would most likely be brought to the judge's attention, and they would excuse that person and replace them with an alternate. Everyone else I've ever heard from has said, “No, we'll provide services after the trial is over.”

As well, at the front end, during the jury selection process, try to identify and remove jurors who are probably not emotionally stable enough to be able to deal well with the particulars of that case.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you.

Professor Thomas, do you have any comment on that?

[Prof. Cheryl Thomas]

The view here is exactly the same. It raises the issue of the importance of court staff during a trial. Yes, the judge is important, but it is usually the ushers and the jury managers who are the ones who spot the people having difficulties and can help them through the process and bring things to the attention of the judge.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you so much.

Are there any other questions, folks?

Not hearing any, I want to thank our witnesses very much. You've been extremely helpful, and we thank you. In particular, to each of our guests from the U.S. and the UK, it's very nice of you to give Canadians the benefit of your insight.

The meeting is adjourned.