12. Allowances

Updates and background for this project (Digest)

• Daily allowance
• Travelling allowance
• Refreshment allowance
• Other reimbursements

12.2 The adequacy of these fees and allowances (hereafter referred to as “allowances”) has been identified as having a direct and significant relationship to the willingness of some people to serve as jurors. It has been argued generally that improvements in the levels of allowances provided for jury service would encourage more people to participate in the system and reduce the number of applications to be excused or the exercise of the existing entitlements to exemption as of right.³ Juries would therefore be more representative of the community than they are at present, particularly in the case of long trials. Clearly, there are self-employed people, proprietors of small businesses, or independent contractors, who cannot afford to be away from work for any lengthy period,⁴ not only because of the temporary loss of income, but also because of the longer term destructive effects of their absence on the viability of their businesses or practices. The position of piece workers and of casual employees, particularly those who undertake seasonal or day work, and who have no regular employment or single employers, can also be seriously affected by the requirement that they perform jury service. People within these categories will often seek to be excused for that reason, and such applications are generally given a sympathetic hearing. If the application is refused, it is almost inevitable that there will be a peremptory challenge, since no party wishes to see a juror empanelled who is likely to be disgruntled or impatient with the rate of progress of the trial. The parties also do not wish to face the risk of a later discharge of the jury when it becomes apparent that the financial difficulties of that juror, occasioned by reason of serving on the jury, have become such that he or she has to be discharged.

DAILY ALLOWANCE

12.3 There are numerous models for providing a daily allowance to jurors. NSW offers a prescribed rate (varying according to length of trial), which is subject to adjustment for any salary received by the juror during the period of service. Some jurisdictions offer a prescribed rate regardless of financial loss or whether the juror continues to receive a salary. One jurisdiction offers a flat rate that must be supplemented by the juror’s employer. Some other jurisdictions recompense jurors for actual financial loss within certain prescribed limits.

12.4 Numerous reviews have commented on the general inadequacy of juror compensation in other jurisdictions, usually recommending that rates be set at a more realistic level.⁵

New South Wales

12.5 In NSW, the daily attendance allowance varies according to the length of the trial as follows:⁶

Attendance fee

Day of attendance ... Fee per day

1st day:

(a) if a person attends for less than 4 hours on that day but is not selected for jury service ... Nil

(b) if a person attends for less than 4 hours on that day and is selected for jury service ... 42.90

(c) if a person attends for more than 4 hours on that day (whether or not the person is selected for jury service) ... 86.20

2nd–5th days: ... 86.20

6th–10th days: .... 100.10

11th and subsequent days: ... 116.80

Despite the attendance fee specified above for each day or part of a day that a person is in attendance for jury service, if the person is paid his or her full wage or salary on a day of attendance by his or her employer (not being an amount that is the difference between the person’s full wage or salary and the attendance fee) and:

(a) that wage or salary is equal to or greater than the attendance fee specified above ... Nil

(b) that wage or salary is less than the attendance fee specified above ... the difference between the attendance fee and the person’s wage or salary

Continuation of salary of employed jurors

12.7 In literal compliance with the Jury Act and Regulations, employees whose employers continue to pay their full salary during the period of the jury service are not entitled to receive any attendance allowances if their salary is equal to or exceeds the prescribed attendance fee. As a consequence, such employers cannot recoup the amount of the allowance from their employees. The current practice, however, assumes that an employer who elects to continue paying an employee during jury service can approach the matter by paying the difference between the usual wage or salary and the attendance allowance, leaving it to the juror to claim that attendance allowance from the Sheriff.⁷ This approach accords with a common provision, which has been present in NSW for a number of years, in awards, and enterprise agreements, which require an employer to make up the difference between the attendance allowance and the juror’s normal wage.⁸ As is mentioned later, the continued existence of such provisions, and of any obligation by employers to continue to provide make-up pay, may be impacted upon by the Commonwealth Work Choices legislation.⁹

12.8 The current practice of the Sheriff’s office is not to pay an attendance allowance to jurors who are State government employees who are entitled to special leave on full pay during jury service,¹⁰ or to those whose private sector employers are known to continue paying a full wage or salary for the duration of jury service. This is consistent with the recommendation of the NSW Law Reform Commission in 1986 that jurors whose employers continued to pay them full wages during jury service should not be advantaged over those whose employers did not pay them,¹¹ and with the recommendations of the NSW Jury Task Force in 1993 to the effect that any person paid a full wage or salary by his or her employer while serving as a juror should not receive an additional allowance.¹²

12.9 This system depends upon the honesty of employees in reporting to the Sheriff by statutory declaration whether they have received any reimbursement from their employer for the period of the jury service, and in reporting to their employer whether they have received an allowance from the Sheriff.¹³ The occurrence and extent of “double dipping” is not clear. However, it does appear to be the case that there is no effective system for its detection.

Level of payment

12.10 In 1978, the attendance allowance for the first five days of a trial was in line with the average weekly minimum wage.¹⁴ The NSW Jury Task Force in 1993 was unanimously of the view that attendance allowances were “inadequate” and needed to be increased.¹⁵ Payment for actual loss of earnings was considered and rejected as too administratively costly.¹⁶ An additional concern was identified in that the provision of a greater level of compensation to some jurors, but not to others, could give rise to an appearance of unfairness, or suggest that the contribution of the first group of jurors was valued more highly than that of the other group or groups.¹⁷ The Task Force, however, concluded that the allowances should be set at the 1985 levels (which had been based on the 1982 average weekly minimum wage with the addition of the National Wage Increase of 8.5%), and further adjusted for subsequent movements in the CPI (75% only).¹⁸ In 1995, the scale of juror attendance allowances was increased to the amount recommended by the Jury Taskforce, but without allowance for further CPI movements in the intervening year.¹⁹ Since that date, the amounts have been increased by regulation on an annual basis in accordance with CPI increases, so that, in the period ending 30 June 2007, they were 26% greater than they were in 1995. On the other hand, it should also be noted that, in August 1995, the maximum payment of $450 per week, after 10 days, represented approximately 66% of average weekly earnings²⁰ but, in February 2007, the then maximum payment of $568.50 per week, represented only approximately 51% of average weekly earnings.²¹ There have recently been calls to increase the allowances substantially, since the current maximum payment is well below the average full-time adult weekly earnings.²²

12.11 It has been reported that jurors in a recent five-month trial in NSW requested an additional week’s allowance because of the effect on their health and well-being.²³ Another District Court jury was recently discharged because the jury allowance was insufficient for one juror to meet her financial obligations when her employer stopped her salary for the duration of her jury service.²⁴

12.12 Many submissions contended that the attendance allowances currently provided are inadequate.²⁵ Some submissions supported paying average weekly earnings,²⁶ at least for trials of five days or more,²⁷ or some proportion of average weekly earnings on a sliding scale, depending upon length of trial.²⁸ One submission supported a system whereby no juror would be out of pocket as the result undertaking jury service.²⁹ Another submission suggested that the allowance should represent at least the median wage for the relevant jury district,³⁰ although without identifying how this could be conveniently determined and adjusted.

Unconditional prescribed rate

12.13 Some jurisdictions provide for the payment of an allowance that varies according to the duration of the trial, but that is not otherwise dependent upon financial loss or any other condition. The allowances are paid in addition to any salary received by jurors during the course of the trial. For example, in the ACT, jurors are paid $40 for attendance for less than four hours; $70 per day for the first four days, $80 for each day from day five to day 10; $95 for each day from day 11 to day 20; and $120 for each day after day 20.³¹ In Queensland, jurors are entitled to $97 for each day or part day for the first 20 days and an additional $32 per day for each day thereafter.³²

Mandatory payment by employers

12.14 In Victoria, the Juries Act specifically provides that employees who have been summoned as jurors, and who have attended court, are entitled to be reimbursed by their employers an amount equal to the difference between the amount of compensation for jury service and the amount that they could “reasonably expect to have received” in respect of their ordinary hours of work had they not been summoned for jury service.³³ This places Victoria’s relatively small daily allowance of $36 for 1-5 days³⁴ in context, at least in relation to employed jurors.

12.15 No other State provides an equivalent statutory protection, although State government employees in NSW, and those whose awards, enterprise agreements or workplace agreements so provide, are placed in a similar position.³⁵ The Victorian provision does not address the problem of those who provide services to business entities on a contract basis, which we understand to be an increasingly common practice, or of those who are self-employed or proprietors of their own businesses.

12.16 Recent amendments to Commonwealth workplace legislation have potentially changed the general position so that provisions requiring employers to compensate their employees for the loss of pay arising from jury service (that is, the usual wage for the period less any jury attendance allowances) are no longer core provisions.³⁶ It has been suggested that these amendments may lead to an increase in the number of people seeking to avoid jury service.³⁷

12.17 The Victorian approach, which involves making employers bear a substantial part of the costs of jury service, has been questioned. Some consider that employers ought not to have to bear the burden of what is essentially a function performed by their employees for the benefit of the justice system, the costs of which should be more properly borne by the State.³⁸ In this respect, some submissions received by the Commission noted that some employers have had to bear the costs of hiring additional staff, or of paying overtime to existing staff members, to cover periods when their employees are absent on jury service, and that to this additional extent they are disadvantaged by the system.³⁹ Another raised the more general possibility of providing compensation to employers who continue paying employees while they are performing jury service,⁴⁰ although without specifically identifying the extent thereof.

Financial loss models

12.18 In England and Wales and in some Australian jurisdictions, jurors can claim a financial loss allowance, up to a prescribed maximum sum per day, depending on the length of the trial.

12.19 For example, in WA, where a basic attendance allowance of $10 to $20 per day applies, depending upon the length of the trial, a juror can claim an amount of up to $240 per day for lost income.⁴¹ This amounts to $1,200 per week, that is more than twice the maximum allowance payable in NSW to those who serve in trials lasting more than 10 days. In SA, a juror suffering monetary loss of more than $20 per day can recover an allowance of up to $125 per day.⁴²

12.20 In England and Wales, regulations may be enacted to permit an additional payment to be made for financial loss occasioned by a juror:

where in consequence of his attendance for that purpose he has incurred any expenditure (otherwise than on travelling and subsistence) to which he would not otherwise be subject or he has suffered any loss of earnings, or of benefit under the enactments relating to social security, which he would otherwise have made or received.⁴³

The Commission’s conclusions

12.22 We agree with the submissions that the current daily allowances are insufficient, and should be addressed, so as to reduce the financial hardship occasioned to jurors, and to remove the barrier to jury service that this entails. We also consider that careful attention should be given, on a continuing basis, to maintaining a proper balance between the obligations of the State and of employers in relation to the continuation of the salary or wages of jurors, or its make-up, while providing jury service. To some extent, this may depend upon the ultimate impact of the Federal Work Choices legislation⁴⁶ and, in particular, whether some exception will be recognised in relation to the general incidents of jury service. Additionally, it depends on whether similar provisions to those appearing in current State awards or enterprise agreements are retained when they are renegotiated or are included in new workplace agreements.

12.23 We recognise that to require the State to reimburse employers for any make-up pay which employers provide could involve a significant increase in the cost of the jury system. We are inclined to the view that the provision of make-up pay should be regarded as part of the civic contribution of employers, which would in any event be partially addressed by an increase across the board in the daily allowance paid to jurors.

12.24 In our view, the submissions in favour of increasing the daily allowance have merit. Unless jurors are guaranteed a reasonable attendance allowance, there will be little incentive for them to serve, and jurors whose earnings exceed the allowance, particularly where they have significant ongoing commitments such as home mortgages or other personal or business borrowings, are likely to be excused from service. For those who are dependent on shift allowances or overtime to meet these commitments, the problems arising from jury service can be even more acute. Unless addressed, this could have the consequences of depriving the system of the services of some who might be best qualified to serve, and of jeopardising the objective of ensuring the availability of representative juries. The barrier to service is likely to be strongest for long and complex trials.

12.25 However, we recognise that an increase in the daily allowance will not completely address the position of all people who are called upon to serve. To a certain extent, it is inevitable that jury service will have an uneven impact on different classes of people, some of whom may suffer financially more than others, while some groups, such as students, pensioners, and the unemployed, may do better by serving on a jury than they otherwise would.

12.26 The Commission therefore proposes a financial loss model whereby jurors would be entitled to a moderately increased basic daily allowance which could then be supplemented by a capped amount to provide a measure of compensation for the additional loss of earnings or income incurred as a result of jury service. The capped amount, which could be available to compensate jurors for financial loss suffered over and above the basic level should, in our view, be set at a more realistic level closer to average weekly earnings.

12.27 We do not consider it appropriate to recommend an increase in specific monetary terms in the daily allowance, or to recommend a specific sum for a cap. This is a matter for the Government to determine. We do, however, consider it appropriate that a differential remain depending on the number of days served, to reflect the greater inconvenience and likely financial loss suffered by those who serve as jurors in longer trials.

12.28 The increased basic sum should be available to all jurors, and should be sufficient to recognise the time and contribution of those who do not strictly suffer any financial loss as a result of jury service, such as, for example, students, people undertaking home duties, retired people and those on pensions, including both government-sourced pensions and allocated pensions drawn from accrued superannuation entitlements.

12.29 While the model suggested would still give rise to some inequality in the burdens of service, it would tend to reduce the adverse financial consequences for most jurors, while at the same time still permitting those who can demonstrate excessive financial hardship, which could not be adequately addressed by our proposal, to apply to be excused for good cause. This model would also have an advantage over providing a significant increase in the allowances across the board, in that the capped additional allowance would be confined to those who can demonstrate an actual financial loss, thereby limiting the overall additional cost that would be occasioned to the system.

12.30 The adoption of the procedure in England and Wales of requiring jurors to produce a “certificate of loss of earning or benefit” before they are paid an allowance for financial loss would provide a useful protection against any possibility of “double-dipping”.

12.31 We note in passing that it is now possible, in England and Wales, for professionals and those holding executive positions to obtain specific cover under loss of income policies for any loss occasioned by the requirement to attend to jury duty. We are unaware whether similar cover might be available or could be negotiated by way of an endorsement under policies issued in Australia. We do not make any specific recommendation, beyond recognising that those in the highest income brackets may have a means through such a policy of limiting any loss of income suffered as a result of jury service.

RECOMMENDATION 58

Jurors should be entitled to a basic daily allowance which can be supplemented by a capped amount to provide a measure of compensation for any loss of earnings or income as a result of jury service. A review should be undertaken with a view to increasing the daily allowance and establishing a capped additional amount which would be available by way of compensation for those who suffer such a financial loss.

The payment of any allowance for loss of earnings or income should depend upon the production of a certificate of loss of earning or income.

12.32 The current four hour precondition for payment of an allowance has the effect of penalising the very many jurors who attend in response to a summons but are immediately released or released prior to 1:00 pm. Most of these people will have effectively lost that day and possibly half-a-day’s pay. Whether that is so or not, they could be justifiably annoyed by being sent away without payment, despite being inconvenienced. That this is the case is supported by the high level of dissatisfaction expressed by such people to Sheriff’s officers when they are informed that they are released but will not be paid for this attendance. It would, in our view, be reasonable for such people to receive a part allowance.

RECOMMENDATION 59

People who attend for jury service in response to a summons, but are released in less than four hours, should receive a part allowance.

12.33 At present, the practice of the courts concerning the payment of jurors for days when they are not required to be present in court varies between judges, some of whom write to the Sheriff recommending that payment be made, while others neglect or decline to do so. We think that the position should be regularised to require the daily attendance allowance to be paid to jurors in such circumstances, save where they have been paid by their employers. This would reflect the fact that they are required to hold themselves ready to attend court during the trial at inconvenience to themselves and to their employers.

RECOMMENDATION 60

Jurors should be paid the daily attendance allowance for days during a trial when they are not required to be present in court but only when they have not been paid by their employers for those days.

12.34 The provisions for the travelling allowance are as follows:

On each day of attendance, for one journey each way between the place of residence of a person attending for jury service, as shown on the jury roll, and the court or inquest attended, the person is entitled to be paid at the rate of 28.90 cents per kilometre with:

(a) a minimum payment of $4.00 each way (being a minimum payment for 14 kilometres each way), and

(b) a maximum payment of $28.90 each way (being a maximum payment for 100 kilometres each way),

whether or not public transport is used.⁴⁷

12.35 In 1995, the travelling allowance was based on the “specified journey rate” set by the Public Employment Office under the Public Sector Management Act 1988 (NSW). The 1995 figure followed recommendations by the Jury Taskforce which considered that jurors’ travelling allowances should “reflect, as closely as possible, actual travel costs”.⁴⁸ The travelling allowance has been adjusted on an annual basis to reflect changes in the CPI since 1995, at the same time that the jurors’ attendance allowances are increased.

12.36 The increase in automotive fuel prices in the period December 1997 to July 2006 is in the order of 84%,⁴⁹ a substantially larger increase than the 27% increase in the travel allowance over the same period,⁵⁰ while rail and bus fares have increased over the same period by about 40% in the case of Sydney buses,⁵¹ and between 38% and 60% in the case of CityRail services, depending upon distance travelled.⁵²

12.37 To the extent that jurors use a motor vehicle in order to travel the whole, or part of the way, to court, the mileage rate, as at July 2006, would have had to have been in the order of 40.6 cents per kilometre in order to reflect those changes in the price of fuel outlined above, a matter of some significance for jurors living in country areas which lack public transport. For many city residents, the costs of travel by private motor vehicle would also be increased by motorway or bridge tolls, or by car parking fees, none of which seem to have been taken into account.

12.38 Even for those who travel by public transport within the Sydney metropolitan region, the calculation of an allowance on a mileage basis often does not reflect the actual costs of a return ticket, particularly for those who may have to use more than one form of transport.

12.39 The current system, using a single mileage rate, replaced an earlier arrangement whereby jurors and potential jurors who used public transport rather than private motor vehicles were reimbursed their actual costs in using such transport. The previous system was considered inefficient because people had to present their train and bus tickets to the Sheriff’s officers for payment. The Jury Taskforce preferred a system based on mileage whereby a computer made all of the necessary calculations and issued automatic payments.⁵³ However, unless that system is capable of calculating allowances which approximate the real and current costs of travel, then there is a risk of some jurors suffering an unnecessary and unreasonable personal cost as a result of their service.

12.40 In England and Wales, different rates have been set for different forms of transport and different circumstances. For example, a juror travelling by public transport can claim the cost of the ticket (2nd class return, if travelling by train). The Lord Chancellor has set separate prescribed rates per mile for travel by bicycle, motorcycles, and cars. A higher rate is available for motorcycles and cars if the court accepts that no alternative public transport is available. Jurors may also be reimbursed for parking fees and taxi fares if they have obtained the court’s permission beforehand.⁵⁴

12.41 In South Australia, the travel allowance is now 60 cents per kilometre, with a minimum payment of $7.20 and no maximum specified.⁵⁵

12.42 While there is merit in the simplicity of a system based on accepted government rates, which would provide a reasonable accommodation for most jurors, we consider that the Sheriff should have a discretion to pay a supplementary allowance to those jurors who can establish, by production of appropriate records, that their actual costs of travel are in excess of the base rates determined by the automated system.

RECOMMENDATION 61

The travel allowance should be increased to reflect the costs of travel.

The Sheriff should have a discretion to pay a supplementary allowance to those jurors who can establish, by production of appropriate records, that their actual and reasonable costs of travel are in excess of the base rates determined by the automated system.

REFRESHMENT ALLOWANCE

12.43 The provision for the refreshment allowance is as follows:

If a juror in either a civil or criminal matter is released by the trial judge during a luncheon adjournment, the juror is entitled to be paid a refreshment allowance of $6.30.⁵⁶

12.45 The refreshment allowance was included in the regulation as the result of the Jury Taskforce’s 1993 recommendation that “jurors not be locked up at lunchtime in the absence of special circumstances” and that they should be allowed to make their own arrangements for meals.⁵⁸ The recommendation has not been implemented because of a general belief that jurors may become compromised by inadvertently talking to the parties in the immediate surroundings of the court and that some jurors may not be relied upon to return on time for the afternoon sitting.

12.46 Victoria, while not offering a refreshment allowance, allows jurors to leave the precincts during the luncheon adjournment and to make their own arrangements for meals. This arrangement has apparently presented few problems. A negligible number of jurors have been compromised by accidentally speaking to parties or witnesses in the case. In some instances, if thought necessary, departures from the court precinct have been staggered, and some judges have even issued express instructions that jurors are to go in one direction for lunch and the parties to the proceedings are to go in another direction.⁵⁹

12.47 Subject to the observations made in the following chapter in relation to the need to introduce some improvements in the jury facilities,⁶⁰ we do not suggest any alteration to the current provision, assuming that the meals provided to jurors are adequate, and that the allowance is updated so as to allow the acquisition of a reasonable meal in place of that provided by the Sheriff. Otherwise, we consider that it should remain within the discretion of the trial judge to determine whether jurors should be allowed to leave the court during the luncheon adjournment, particularly in those locations where the jury quarters continue to be cramped and less than optimal.

OTHER REIMBURSEMENTS

12.48 In England and Wales, as we have noted, a different approach has been taken to reimbursing people who have suffered financial loss as a result of jury service.

12.49 The Lord Chancellor has determined the maximum financial loss allowance that can be claimed per day in accordance with this provision, depending on the length of the trial. This sum is available to meet any financial loss attributable to jury service, including not only loss of earnings or benefits, but also fees paid to carers or child minders, or other payments which a juror has made solely because of jury service, subject to the production of receipts or other supporting documentation.⁶¹ We are attracted by this approach, although we recognise that there would need to be a reasonable ceiling established, and that its adoption would depend upon there being some increment to the Sheriff’s budget. We have already addressed the question of compensation for the additional loss of earnings,⁶² and now consider some of the other heads of loss which could justify some measure of compensation.

Substitute care and other out-of-pocket expenses

12.50 Some submissions raised the possibility of jurors being reimbursed for any fees which they pay for substitute care where that is rendered necessary by jury service.⁶³ In New Zealand, jurors are entitled to claim for the actual and reasonable costs of childcare incurred because of attendance for jury service.⁶⁴

12.51 We are of the view that consideration should be given to the provision of reasonable minder and childcare expenses, subject to a cap of the kind mentioned, where they are incurred by reason of jury duty and where alternative expense-free arrangements are not reasonably available. This would have the advantage of potentially expanding the available jury pool, by allowing those to serve who currently seek an exemption as of right by reason of carer obligations, or who would seek to be excused for cause if our recommendations are accepted. We recognise, however, that the provision of such expenses on a general basis would need to be subject to the relevant budget capacity, and that its provision would necessarily be weighed against the countervailing benefits of potentially widening the jury pool to include those who would otherwise be excused because of personal hardship.

12.52 Some jurors may incur additional out-of-pocket expenses beyond travel and substitute care expenses in order to render jury service, for example where they may need to find accommodation in rural towns rather than face the cost or inconvenience of travelling. While there may not be many people in this category, we see no reason why a discretion should not exist for the Sheriff to pay these expenses where they are reasonably incurred.

12.53 At the least, we consider that it would be desirable to follow the Queensland precedent of permitting the payment of special compensation for financial loss due to jury service in a trial lasting longer than a defined period,⁶⁵ although again subject to the establishment of a reasonable ceiling.

RECOMMENDATION 62

Consideration should be given to allowing jurors to recover reasonable minder and childcare expenses that are incurred by reason of jury duty.

The Sheriff should be granted the discretion to pay additional out-of-pocket expenses incurred by reason of jury duty where such expenses are reasonably incurred.

12.54 A question also arises as to whether there should be a provision for the reimbursement of an employer for any expenses incurred over and above the maintenance of the salary of an employee who provides jury service, for example, in relation to the costs of hiring additional staff or of paying overtime to existing staff members to cover periods when that employee is absent on jury service, or for losses occasioned by the absence of the employees on jury duty. It has been suggested that, to the extent to which they incur such expenses, such employers are effectively subsidising the system,⁶⁶ and one submission argued for the payment of amounts to cover substitute staff or locums.⁶⁷

12.55 Although there is some attraction in making provision of this kind, we do not favour its introduction. First, we see no reason why the fact of substantial financial hardship to an employer arising from a properly demonstrated need to hire additional staff because an employee has been summoned for jury duty or arising otherwise by reason of the absence of key employees should not be taken into account on an application by that juror to be excused for good cause. This is particularly so where the period of service is likely to be lengthy. Secondly, employers and those who run small businesses or private practices are commonly faced with the need to bring in locums or replacement staff, by reason of factors other than jury duty such as illness and holidays.

12.56 We do not see any justification for treating jury duty as other than a normal workplace event, whether the juror be an employee, or a person in private practice, or a principal of a small business. A preferable solution would be that which we discussed earlier, namely, extending the exemption arising in relation to previous jury service so as to embrace any employee of a small business where an employee of that business has rendered jury service within the preceding 12 months.⁶⁸ This would go some of the way towards addressing the inconvenience or cost occasioned to employers.

1. Jury Act 1977 (NSW) s 72(1).

2. Jury Regulation 2004 (NSW) cl 5(1).

3. See, eg, Parliament of Victoria, Law Reform Committee, Jury Service in Victoria, Final Report (1996), [6.21]; T Dick, “Crime doesn’t pay, but then neither does jury duty” Sydney Morning Herald (28 September 2006), 2.

4. Parliament of Victoria, Law Reform Committee, Jury Service in Victoria, Final Report (1996), [6.25]; T Dick, “Crime doesn’t pay, but then neither does jury duty” Sydney Morning Herald (28 September 2006), 2.

5. See Parliament of Victoria, Law Reform Committee, Jury Service in Victoria, Final Report (1996), [6.22]; South Australia, Sheriff’s Office, South Australian Jury Review (2002), 18; Tasmania, Department of Justice and Industrial Relations, Review of the Jury Act 1899, Issues Paper (Legislation, Strategic Policy and Information Resources Division, 1999), ch 4; United Kingdom, Home Office, Report of the Departmental Committee on Jury Service, Cmnd 2627 (1965), [294]-[296]; England and Wales, Royal Commission on Criminal Justice, Report (1993), 132; J Goodman-Delahunty, N Brewer, J Clough, J Horan, J Ogloff, and D Tait, Practices, Policies and Procedures that Influence Juror Satisfaction in Australia, (Draft) Report to the Criminology Research Council (2007) not yet published, vii, 73, 120-121, 124, 131 and 136.

6. Jury Regulation 2004 (NSW) Sch 1 Scale A.

7. See also Jury Regulation 2004 (NSW) cl 5(2).

8. See, eg, Animal Welfare, General (State) Award (2001) 322 NSW Industrial Gazette 531 (Publication No B9691) cl 24(ii); Speedibake Enterprise Agreement 2003 (IRC3/6671; EA04/29) cl 18; Speedo Australia Certified Agreement 2003 (IRC3/5005; EA03/204) cl 5.6(b).

9. See para 14.20-14.28.

10. Public Sector Employment and Management (General) Regulation 1996 (NSW) cl 94.

11. NSW Law Reform Commission, Criminal Procedure: The Jury in a Criminal Trial, Report 48 (1986), [6.41].

12. NSW, Report of the NSW Jury Task Force (1993), 41.

13. Terms in many awards and enterprise agreements required employees to produce proof of receipt of attendance allowances so that employers could adjust their pay rates accordingly: see, eg, Animal Welfare, General (State) Award (2001) 322 NSW Industrial Gazette 531 (Publication No B9691) cl 24(iii); Speedibake Enterprise Agreement 2003 (IRC3/6671; EA04/29) cl 18; Speedo Australia Certified Agreement 2003 (IRC3/5005; EA03/204) cl 5.6(b).

14. The Australian Bureau of Statistics stopped compiling statistics on the average weekly minimum wage in 1982: NSW, Report of the NSW Jury Task Force (1993), 38.

15. NSW, Report of the NSW Jury Task Force (1993), 39.

16. NSW, Report of the NSW Jury Task Force (1993), 41.

17. See New Zealand, Law Commission, Juries in Criminal Trials, Report 69 (2001), [485].

18. NSW, Report of the NSW Jury Task Force (1993), 39-40.

19. Jury Act 1977 - Regulation 1995 No 43 (NSW) cl 2(b).

20. That is, full-time adult ordinary time earnings.

21. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Average Weekly Earnings (6302.0, February 2007).

22. S Marsden, “Low pay levels for jurors ‘unacceptable’, NSW barristers say” AAP General News Wire (20 October 2006), 1. The average full-time adult ordinary time earnings for NSW are currently $1,111.00: Australian Bureau of Statistics, Average Weekly Earnings (6302.0, February 2007).

23. S Marsden, “Low pay levels for jurors ‘unacceptable’, NSW barristers say” AAP General News Wire (20 October 2006), 1; NSW Bar Association, “Jurors shouldn’t suffer for doing their duty” (Media Release, 20 October 2006).

24. G Jacobsen, “Juror cries poor and halts trial” Sydney Morning Herald (29 November 2006), 1.

25. NSW Bar Association, Submission, [37]; Law Society of NSW, Submission; NSW Public Defender’s Office, Submission, 11; Redfern Legal Centre, Submission, 14; J Goldring, Submission, 6; Law Society of NSW, Submission, 1; NSW Young Lawyers, Submission, 23-24; M J Stocker, Submission, 3, 10.

26. NSW Public Defender’s Office, Submission, 11.

27. NSW Bar Association, Submission, [37].

28. J Goldring, Submission, 6.

29. NSW Young Lawyers, Submission, 23-24.

30. Redfern Legal Centre, Submission, 15.

31. Juries Fees Regulation 1968 (ACT) Sch 1 item 2.

32. Jury Regulation 1997 (Qld) Sch 2 Item 1.

33. Juries Act 2000 (Vic) s 52(2).

34. Juries (Fees, Remuneration and Allowances) Regulations 2001 (Vic) reg 6(1)(a).

35. Public Sector Employment and Management (General) Regulation 1996 (NSW) cl 94; and see, eg, Animal Welfare, General (State) Award (2001) 322 NSW Industrial Gazette 531 (Publication No B9691) cl 24; Speedibake Enterprise Agreement 2003 (IRC3/6671; EA04/29) cl 18; Speedo Australia Certified Agreement 2003 (IRC3/5005; EA03/204) cl 5.6.

36. See Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) s 527(2)(f).

37. See Law Society of NSW, “Jury out on IR reforms” (Media release, 30 June 2005).

38. See, eg, Commerce Queensland, Policy Issue - Queensland Government’s Review of Jury Service Up For Comment (2003), 2; New Zealand, Law Commission, Juries in Criminal Trials, Report 69 (2001), [484].

39. Australian Business Ltd, Preliminary submission, 2; M J Stocker, Submission, 10.

40. NSW, Jury Task Force, Preliminary submission, 4.

41. Juries (Allowances to Jurors) Regulations (WA) cl 2.

42. Juries (Remuneration for Jury Service) Regulations 2002 (SA) Sch item 1(1).

43. Juries Act 1974 (Eng) s 19(1)(b).

44. Her Majesty’s Courts Service, Allowances RFC-793 (07/06). The amounts in Australian dollars, as at 26 June 2007, were approximately $138 and $275 respectively per day.

45. England and Wales, Her Majesty’s Courts Service, Allowances, RFC-793 (07/06).

46. See para 14.20-14.28.

47. Jury Regulation 2004 (NSW) Sch 1 Scale B.

48. NSW, Report of the NSW Jury Task Force (1993), 42.

49. Calculated from the average retail price of 1 litre of unleaded petrol in Sydney: Australian Bureau of Statistics, Average Retail Prices of Selected Items, Eight Capital Cities (6403.0, December 1997); Australian Bureau of Statistics, Average Retail Prices of Selected Items, Eight Capital Cities (6403.0.55.001, June 2006).

50. Calculated from the travelling allowance quoted in Jury Amendment (Attendance Fees) Regulation 1997 (NSW) Sch 1.

51. Based on the fare prices for single trip fares for 1 or 2 sections and 10-15 sections: Transport Administration (State Transit Authority – Fares) Amendment Order 1997 (NSW) Sch 1[1]; Transport Administration (State Transit Authority—Fares) Order 2004 (NSW) Sch 1.

52. For journeys up to 25km: Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of NSW, Public Transport Fares from 29 June 1997: CityRail and STA buses and ferries, 17; CityRail, Passenger Fares and Coaching Rates Handbook (effective from: 2 July 2006), 3-2.

53. NSW, Report of the NSW Jury Task Force (1993) at 42.

54. England and Wales, Her Majesty’s Courts Service, Allowances, RFC-793 (07/06).

55. Juries (Remuneration for Jury Service) Regulations 2002 (SA) Sch, item 3.

56. Jury Regulation 2004 (NSW) Sch 1 Scale C.

57. Confidential, Consultation; J Mendelssohn, “The Law: The Trials of a Jury” «www.newmatilda.com» (14 March 2007).

58. NSW, Report of the NSW Jury Task Force (1993), 44.

59. R Monteleone, Consultation.

60. See para 13.2-13.5.

61. England and Wales, Her Majesty’s Courts Service, Allowances, RFC-793 (07/06).

62. See para 12.22-12.31.

63. NSW Public Defender’s Office, Submission, 8; NSW Young Lawyers, Submission, 24; Redfern Legal Centre, Submission, 15. See also NSW Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Preliminary submission at 4.

64. Jury Rules 1990 (NZ) r 28(6).

65. In Queensland, 30 days: Jury Act 1995 (Qld) s 64(2).

66. Australian Business Ltd, Preliminary submission, 2.

67. Redfern Legal Centre, Submission, 15.

68. See para 6.70.