-
Related
As the Norfolk Island Supreme Court opened on
Monday morning for the island's first murder trial in 150
years, one man was waiting outside on rather urgent business.
Called as a possible juror in the trial of New Zealand chef Glenn
McNeill, he was there to tell the judge his wife had just gone into
labour.
She, too, was on the short list for jury service - could they both
be excused?
As it turned out, they were the first of dozens of islanders to be
discharged from duty as jury selection began on Australia's tiny
Pacific territory.
Eighty-nine potential jurors presented at court, where McNeill
stands accused of the 2002 murder of Sydney woman Janelle
Patton.
All but 17 asked to be excused.
The courtroom can only accommodate a dozen observers, which
included McNeill's family, so the entire jury pool gathered in a
marquee on the courthouse lawn.
They looked on via videolink as McNeill was arraigned, pleading not
guilty.
The Chief Justice of Norfolk Island, Mark Weinberg, addressed the
group ahead of selection.
"You will have heard a great deal about (the) case both because you
live on this island and because of the intense media publicity
which has been given to it," he said.
"You would have had to be living on another planet not to have
heard anything at all about this case before."
But he emphasised that jurors would have to judge the case
impartially, based solely on the evidence presented in court, and
not on information garnered from any other source.
"It is essential that every member of the jury be completely
open-minded about the case that they will hear and not favour one
side or the other," Chief Justice Weinberg said.
The judge also urged people not to be embarrassed about applying to
be excused from jury service.
Few were.
As the jury list was called, 72 people indicated they wished to be
excused - some doing so before the judge's associate could
finish reading out their names - and 56 were ultimately
successful.
Most put their reasons to the judge in open court, with at least a
dozen saying they knew either the victim or the accused.
One man said he knew them both.
Others knew one or more of the 80-odd people who may appear as
witnesses or be mentioned in evidence, while some said they could
not leave their businesses for five weeks, the expected length of
the trial.
In several cases the revelation that a potential juror had strong
views about the case - and did not believe they could approach the
evidence with an open mind - was enough to ensure their
dismissal.
One elderly gentleman seeking exemption had to be asked his name
twice before responding.
"I've got a hearing problem," he said, triggering a burst of
laughter from observers.
"I think you've proved that," said the judge, sending him on his
way.
After a process lasting more than five hours - in which the defence
challenged eight possible jurors and the crown five - a jury of
five women and seven men was sworn in.
Legal argument will continue in closed court on Tuesday, with the
jury set to hear opening addresses on Wednesday.
