The trial of a mother over the death of her child was due to start in Wanganui District Court on Monday but proceedings were held up for two days because of the lack of jury members.
After only eight of the required 12 made the effort to show up on Wednesday, Judge David Cameron had, understandably, had enough.
"I send a clear message to the Wanganui community that failing to attend jury service is totally unacceptable because the court can't function properly," he said.
And he called for those who failed to respond to a jury summons to be arrested and fined. Quite right, too.
On Thursday, the prosecution withdrew its case against the mother and it could be argued that, with the tragic loss of a child, she already faced the severest of sentences.
But away from the ramifications of that particular case, the reluctance of people to turn up and do their duty as members of a jury makes a mockery of our legal process.
Yes, jury service can be most inconvenient - there's a business to run, children to look after, a whole host of reasons why any other time would be a better time.
And there are issues over how fair and efficient the jury system is. Having served on two juries, I have noted how the situation tends to bring out people's personal prejudices.
One of the fascinating aspects of the Oscar Pistorius murder trial was that, rather than the expected jury, the verdict relied on the single deliberations of one very experienced judge.
Whether that delivers a better form of justice could be long debated, but in New Zealand - and many other countries - the fair-minded and objective judgment of 12 of one's peers is a vital part of our court system.
And the responsibility to serve that system when called upon must be taken seriously.
