KINGSTOWN, St. Vincent, CMC – A businessman has been summoned to appear before High Court Judge Justice Rickie Burnett after he reportedly threatened to dismiss one of his staff members if she responded to a jury summons.
The development came just over a month after a lawyer told the High Court that the Jury Act should be amended to allow public servants to serve as jurors. Residents of the Grenadines are also barred from the jury pool.
The female worker at the retail store in Kingstown was the only juror absent among the 93 summoned to attend court on Tuesday, the first sitting of the January assizes, and that judge that she appear before him on Wednesday to explain herself.
“That’s because the boss man told me if I am to leave work to attend here, he is going to fire me,” the woman told the judge, to which he asked, “Is he still going to fire you?”
“I am not sure. I am unsure if he would lay me off at the end of this,” she replied. The judge then told the juror that he could go. Further, he would “pause a while.”
Crown Counsel Renee Simmons told the court of a similar situation before another judge, who sent the police to the employer and brought him before the court.
She said that in that instance, the judge explained to the employer the importance of jurors and their service and that the employer could not fire the juror.
Simmons said Justice Cottle gave the employer a very stern warning.
“Given what she is saying, I would think that is the best course of action,” the Crown Counsel said, referring to the current situation.
Justice Burnett said that is precisely what he was planning to do. He summoned the employer to appear before him, noting that the woman had said he was at the court earlier that morning.
When the employer appeared before the court, the judge explained the reason for summoning him to court. He also explained how the justice system functions.
“If there are no jurors, we may not have any criminal court because that is the law – judge and jury,” Justice Burnett said.
The employer confirmed that the juror works for him, saying, “I never told her not to come to court. She was a juror last year or the year before. I told her I understood the law but would hire someone if she were a juror again.
“I never told her I was going to fire her,” he said, adding that the juror had been on maternity leave for three months and he “did not do anything.”
The law provides for three months’ paid maternity leave for employees.
“There was a misunderstanding,” the businessman said, adding that he did not tell the worker that he would have her replaced if she served as a juror.
He said he told her he would “add one more staff, and I will still pay her.” The businessman said that last year, another worker served as a juror.
“So, you do not have any difficulty in her serving in the assizes?” the judge asked.
The businessman said, “Not at all,” adding that the juror would remain employed.
The Crown Counsel asked the court to verify that the juror would be granted the same pay, and the businessman said this would be the case, adding that he did not know that the juror had to come to court on Tuesday.
“I’m happy that we have settled this matter. Because you will not want to obstruct my court from functioning? Justice Burnett said, to which the businessman replied, “Not at all. We are under the law”.
“Consequences will follow if you obstruct the court,” the judge said, adding, “and if you do that, you can be charged for doing that, and as a very good employer, you would not do that. We have settled this, and I expect to see [this juror] tomorrow at 9 a.m.”
and then 