KEY POINTS:
Ruling overturns judge's ban on prosecutors using jurors' criminal records in vetting
The Court of Appeal has ruled the practice of vetting jurors using their criminal records is acceptable - a decision defence lawyers say could result in less diverse juries.
Although people convicted of serious crimes are automatically disqualified from jury service, prosecutors in New Zealand can also use criminal records of lesser offences as a basis to challenge potential jurors.
Defence lawyers do not have access to the criminal histories of potential jurors and, because of a lack of resources, Auckland prosecutors do not use criminal records in this way either, the Sunday Star-Times reported yesterday.
At the empanelling of jurors before a trial, both the Crown and the defence can "challenge" six potential jurors without giving a reason.
Last year, Christchurch defence lawyer James Rapley applied to the High Court to prevent prosecutors vetting jurors based on their police histories.
Justice John Fogarty agreed and the practice was stopped nationwide.
But prosecutors were upset by the decision, saying it resulted in mistrials and hung juries, Rapley said.
Justice Fogarty asked for the matter to be clarified by the Court of Appeal, which said juror biases could work for or against defendants depending on circumstances.
The court ruled criminal histories obtained from the police database could be used to exclude jurors who may have an interest in particular cases.
But the information would not necessarily be available to defence lawyers.
Mr Rapley said the judgment was "disappointing" and would mean juries were less diverse.
"People with older minor convictions like drugs, perhaps from their student years, you may well find that people with these sorts of convictions won't be on the jury in drug trials."
Juries would have a "sanitised component", he said.
The ruling said that ultimately defence lawyers should be allowed access to the same information as prosecutors when vetting a jury.
- NZPA
