Juries: Disclosure of Information (Hansard, 11 May 1987)

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

The Minister of State, Home Office (The Earl of Caithness)
My Lords, no.

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that singularly informative, if somewhat lengthy, reply. Does he recall that this section among other measures provides that the defence in a criminal case is entitled not only to the names but also to the home addresses of those called on the jury list? In certain cases, such as the recent Chelsea trial, is one not exposing jurymen to unnecessary risk and to considerable danger if one makes their addresses available to those in touch with the defence?

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, as I understand it, the home address is not given in every case. However, in highly populated areas such as London where a home address might be useful, it is a long-standing tradition that to do so is of help to the defence so that it can if necessary challenge for cause.

§ Lord Denning
My Lords, is the Minister aware that under Section 5 it is not only the accused man who can inspect the jury panel and who therefore has the names, occupations and addresses of the jury? It is also the case that his friends, relatives or associates acting on his behalf have the right to inspect the panel and so find the names, addresses and occupations of the jurors. Is it not desirable that this provision should be amended? It facilitates the vicious practice of jury nobbling when the accused's associates are able to find the addresses and occupations of the jurors.

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord will know far better than me, the list is a long and comprehensive one. We have no evidence to suppose that jury nobbling comes about as a result of inspecting the list. I can tell the House that between November 1982 and 1984, only 34 requests were made by the defence to inspect a jury panel.

§ Lord Elwyn-Jones
My Lords, is it not the case that the occupation of the jurors is not listed as required by the Act?

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is absolutely right. I apologise for not 416 answering that part of the other noble and learned Lord's question.

§ Lord Wigoder
My Lords, is it not a fact that in many parts of the country the addresses are also never provided?

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, indeed. I made that clear, I hope, in my first supplementary reply.

§ Baroness Macleod of Borve
My Lords, in a certain type of case where the defendant is alleged to have committed a particularly violent crime, does the Minister agree that if the names and addresses are known not only in court but perhaps, through a photocopy, to friends outside, the lives of some people who have served on the jury may be put in danger?

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, I am sure my noble friend agrees that it is right that there should be a challenge for cause in jury trials. If there is to be a challenge for cause—a long-standing tradition in this country—it seems imperative that the list is provided to enable the defence to base its claims for cause.

§ Lord Hutchinson of Lullington
My Lords, will the Minister confirm that in the case referred to by the noble Lord who asked this Question the list of jurymen was requested with this approval of the prosecution because local newspapers had published a great deal of information which might have led to interference with the fairness of the trial? The purpose of looking at the jury panel was to make quite sure that no one on the jury lived in the area where the newspapers were circulated. Does the Minister agree that that was a perfectly proper use of the right of the prosecution and the defence to see the panel list of potential jurors and their addresses?

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, I am not aware of the specific case in such detail as the noble Lord. I believe therefore that it would be wrong for me to comment on it.

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
My Lords, can my noble friend explain why he told your Lordships that the addresses were not given in certain cases when the statute provides that they should be?

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, it is found necessary for an address to be given in some of the more populous areas such as London in order to identify the juror so that a challenge for cause can be made if necessary. It is not necessary in more rural areas.

Viscount St. Davids
My Lords, would it not be better if all the details necessary for the course of justice were handed to the judge who could then give them to those entitled to have them? This would secure the safety of everyone concerned and prevent the troubles that could be involved in the present provision.

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, whether one acts through the judge or makes the details available to the defence, the defence still knows about them.