An Ontario Superior Court of Justice has ruled that the changes to peremptory challenges of jurors should be applied to jury selection beginning September 19, 2019.
On September 19, 2019, Pardeep Singh Chouhan was scheduled to select a jury for a first-degree murder trial. This was also the day that Bill C-75 came into force.
The amendments set out in Bill C-75 reform the procedure for jury selection in the following three ways:
- The trial judge will be the one to determine whether the prospective juror is likely to decide the case impartially in the circumstances when either party has challenged the juror for cause. Previously, the court used lay triers to make this determination.
- The ability to challenge prospective jurors by means of peremptory challenges by either party has been eliminated.
- The trial judge has been given the discretion to stand aside a juror for the purpose of maintaining public confidence in the administration of justice.
In court, Chouhan’s lawyers argued that the provisions of Bill C-75, specifically the elimination of peremptory challenges, violates sections 7 (the right to life, liberty and security), 11(d) (the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty) and 11(f) (the right to trial by jury where the maximum punishment for the offence is imprisonment for five years or a more severe punishment) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Chouhan’s lawyers argued that the new procedures would breach their client’s right to an independent and impartial jury by giving the trial judge the discretion to make the determination in circumstances of either party challenging the juror for cause.
The ability to exclude a potential juror based simply on their appearance, their look, or a person’s gut feeling, without furnishing a reason, is not transparent. The elimination of the peremptory challenge does make the justice system more transparent, but without removing either parties’ ability to set aside potential jurors for articulate reasons. The representativeness of the panel, the randomness of its selection and the ability for either party to challenge the process provide sufficient safeguards.
Justice McMahon held that an accused is not entitled to a jury that “reflects the proportionality of the population” or those of members of the same demographic group. He concluded that there are safeguards in place to ensure that the jury remains independent and impartial, including the ability to screen prospective jurors for bias and the trial judge’s ability to excuse or reject prospective jurors for specific reasons. He explained:
It appears that if either party can articulate reasons why a prospective juror would not be impartial, the judge would clearly have the ability to stand aside a prospective juror to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.
Chouhan’s lawyers also argued that the changes to jury selection should not apply to those whose alleged offence occurred before Bill C-75 came into force. Justice McMahon dismissed this argument and maintained that the new rules should be applied for every jury selected after they went into force, including Chouhan’s pending trial.
WHAT IS THE NEW LAW REGARDING JURY SELECTION?
Section 634 of the Criminal Code provided the rules for peremptory challenges. Bill C-75 was established by the government in an effort to make juries more representative following the divisive acquittal of Gerald Stanley. We have previously written a blog regarding the case of Stanley, who was charged with second-degree murder in the death of an Indigenous man, Colten Boushie. In this case, there were no Indigenous members sitting in the jury.
Bill C-75 includes the removal of peremptory challenges from the jury selection process. Peremptory challenges were a means by which lawyers for both the prosecution and defence could dismiss a certain number of prospective jurors, without any explanation. The number of peremptory challenges allowed to a given party depended upon the seriousness of the crime, the number of jurors and whether there are co-accused. Some believe that this process was used to ensure a particular composition of the jury.
Under the provisions of Bill C-75, lawyers have the ability to disqualify prospective jurors that they believe cannot be impartial. However, under the new provisions, the judge makes the final decision. This change is meant to address a growing concern that the jury selection process may discriminate unfairly against potential jurors.
If you have any questions regarding charges laid against you or your legal rights, please contact the knowledgeable criminal lawyers at Affleck & Barrison LLP online or at 905-404-1947. Our skilled criminal lawyers have significant experience defending a wide range of criminal charges and protecting our client’s rights. For your convenience, we offer a 24-hour telephone service to protect your rights and to ensure that you have access to justice.