Attorney General Anil Nandlall has rejected suggestions that the jury system should be abolished and while he stands firm that reform as he had proposed recently in Parliament is the better option, legal sources say this would only work if the isolation of jurors and shorter trial times are taken into consideration.
It was Senior Counsel Ralph Ramkarran who cited the recent poor conviction rate from High Court cases and the growing complexity of crimes that juries have to preside over, as grounds for the dismissal of Nandlall’s proposal.
When contacted, Nandlall told the Sunday Stabroek that reform should come before abolition. He also stated that many are impressed with the output of the jury system and he used United Kingdom (UK) and the United States (US) as examples.
“Firstly, personally, I feel that the jury system plays an important role and it is important in our justice system,” he said, while pointing out that despite Ramkarran’s views on the issue, there are many people who feel that the jury system must remain.
Nandlall explained that before he made the issue a part of his presentation during the budget debate, he had consultations. He added that the judiciary,
