Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Tiffany Scatliffe has argued that older members of the public should not be discriminated against or robbed of the opportunity to perform citizen duties based on stereotypes associated with their greater age.
At the time, Scatliffe was responding to a concern expressed surrounding the expansion of the eligible age of jurors from 21-60, to 18 – 70, in which the interviewer questioned the capacity of 70-year-olds to meet the demands of jury duty.
She responded, “Persons who are older are just as able and willing to serve the community and we need to stop this narrative of saying that people are old because we’re all going to get old at one point.”
Scatliffe went on to argue that “there are 70-year-old persons who are more agile, more physically fit, more mentally capable than the 20-year-old. So why are we leaving them out? They have lived life.”
The DPP went on to explain that in the interest of the court, older, more experienced jurors may in fact be better suited to serve.
“One of the things a judge will tell you when he is summing up to a jury, he will say you have to use and pull from your life experiences. You’re not going to get life experiences at 20 years old, you’re going to get it at 60, 70, those age ranges. So once they’re able and you are capable, you have the mental capacity and the physical capacity, why should you be left out?” she remarked.
Provisions exist within the proposed Jury Act to assess jurors individually to ensure that they are sound of mind and body to perform their role as jurors.
However, outside of special circumstances where it is determined that persons are unfit to serve, the new act will allow persons of the full stipulated age range to be called upon for jury duty.