Call Us 24/7 AT (416) 658-1818
With the introduction of Bill C-75, significant changes are to be made in the jury selection process. Currently, the Crown and Defence receive an equal number of peremptory challenges to utilize during the jury selection process. Peremptory challenges, by definition, are a defendant's or lawyer's objection to a proposed juror, made without the need to provide an explanation. The Crown and defence counsel are provided with the name, age, and occupation of the potential juror for evaluation. If based on this information and the appearance of the potential juror, the Crown or defence counsel decide they do not want this proposed juror, they can exclude them without explanation using one of their peremptory challenges.
The Criminal Code provides detailed insight regarding peremptory challenges. A juror can be challenged peremptorily without prior cause according to section 634 (1). Moreover, the maximum number of peremptory challenges varies based on the magnitude of the charges. The prosecutor and the accused can each have twenty peremptory challenges if the accusation is of high treason or first-degree murder. Under different charges which could lead to imprisonment exceeding five years, they are entitled to twelve challenges. For any other offence not mentioned before, they can have four challenges.
When the judge, abiding by subsection 631(2.2), decides to swear in 13 or 14 jurors, the total number of peremptory challenges that the prosecutor and the accused are entitled to is increased by one in the case of 13 jurors or two for 14 jurors. If the judge orders for alternate jurors, the total number of peremptory challenge entitlement is increased by one for each alternate juror.
In cases of juror replacements under subsection 644(1.1), the prosecutor and the accused are each allowed one peremptory challenge for each juror being replaced. When multiple counts in an indictment are to be tried together, the prosecutor and the accused can only use the number of peremptory challenges provided for the count which allows for the maximum number of challenges. In joint trials of two or more accused, each accused gets the number of peremptory challenges as if they were tried alone, whereas the prosecutor gets the total number of peremptory challenges available to all accused.
In discussing peremptory challenges, it's important to reference the specific legal texts and amendments that govern this area. These can be found in: R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 634; 1992, c. 41, s. 2; 2002, c. 13, s. 54; 2008, c. 18, s. 25; 2011, c. 16, s. 8. More details on these can be accessed from the source, criminalnotebook.ca
Ordinarily, peremptory challenges are employed by the Crown or defence counsel to disqualify jurors who they perceive might be sympathetic to one party based on their sex, age, gender, or visible racial identity. Aiming to create more diverse and equitable juries, Bill C-75 proposes to eliminate peremptory challenges from the jury selection process.
This decision is partially influenced by the R. v. Gerald Stanley case. A highlight of Mr. Stanley's acquittal made it evident that peremptory challenges can result in an underrepresentation of visible minorities on jury panels. There is a shared belief that for fundamental justice, it is in the best interest to have diverse and representative juries.
This demand for jury reform has been long overdue with an urgent need to address systemic racism, a criticism that rings particularly true when Indigenous people are before the court in the criminal justice system.
There are suggestions to not entirely eliminate peremptory challenges but restrict them to some degree. Lastly, it's crucial to be aware of your rights. Kostman and Pyzer, Barristers are available for free consultation.
