Seeing Justice Done: Increasing Indigenous Representation on Canadian Juries

• Author: Keith Hogg
• Position: Obtained his JD degree from the University of Victoria Faculty of Law in spring 2020 and is currently articling with the BC Ministry of the Attorney General
• Pages: 51-70

APPEAL VOLUME 26  51

* Keith Hogg obtained his JD degree from the University of Victoria Faculty of Law in spring 2020 and

is currently articling with the BC Ministry of the Attorney General. The views and opinions expressed

in this article are those of the author alone and do not necessarily represent those of the Government

of British Columbia. The author is deeply grateful for the meticulous editorial support of Frances

Miltimore and the rest of the Appeal board members and volunteers.

ARTICLE

SEEING JUSTICE DONE: INCREASING

INDIGENOUS REPRESENTATION ON

CANADIAN JURIES

Keith Hogg *

CITED: (2021) 26 Appeal 51

ABSTRACT

e underrepresentation of Indigenous people on Canadian juries threatens public condence

in the criminal justice system, particularly in cases involving Indigenous accused or defendants.

Despite being the subject of many high-prole legal cases, inquiries, and reports, the problem

endures today, and meaningful reform has been elusive. is paper considers the ways in

which Indigenous people are excluded at each of the three stages of the juror selection

process. It critiques the Supreme Court of Canada’s ruling on the issue in the 2015 case of R v

Kokopenace and concludes with several recommendations including that citizens be allowed to

volunteer for jury duty in order to remedy the race-based disparity in representation on juries.

APPEAL VOLUME 26  52

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 53

I. THE SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM ............................................................................................. 53

II. THE JURY ROLL .......................................................................................................................... 55

A. THE KOKOPENACE D ECISION ......................................................................................... 55

B. SOUR CE LISTS ...................................................................................................................... 58

III. THE JU RY PANEL ........................................................................................................................ 59

A. JUROR QUALIFICATIONS ................................................................................................60

B. ECONOMIC BARRIER S .......................................................................................................61

C. GEOGRAPHIC AREA .......................................................................................................... 62

IV. THE T RIAL JURY .........................................................................................................................63

A . CHALLENGE TO TH E ENTIRE PANEL ...........................................................................64

B. CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE ................................................................................................. 65

C. PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES .......................................................................................... 67

V. VOLUNTEER JURORS ...............................................................................................................67

CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................................69