‘We Have Centuries of Work Undone by a Few Bone-Heads’: A Review of Jury History, a Present Snapshot of Crown and Defence Counsel Perspectives on Bill C-75’s Elimination of Peremptory Challenges, and Representativeness Issues

In the fall of 2019, peremptory challenges were abolished in Canadian jury trials, much to the chagrin of many criminal law practitioners. Ostensibly, Bill C-75 was passed partially in response to the fallout stemming from the controversial R v Stanley verdict, a case in which peremptory challenges were allegedly used to remove any and all jurors who appeared to be Indigenous. Bill C-75 has not been without its own controversy, however. Commentary by both legal professionals and scholars indicates that Bill C-75 – though well intentioned – may ultimately do more harm than good for the very communities it purports to serve. Numerous criminal law practitioners were quick to criticize Bill C-75 as being knee-jerk, reactionary, and, ultimately, a highly political move that would do little to address the systemic issues plaguing the criminal justice system in Canada, particularly for racialized and marginalized communities. The paper below endeavours to give voice to these perspectives. Following an extensive review of the history of peremptory challenges and a general history of jury work, we share the results of our survey in which Canadian Crown and defence counsel were asked to share their opinions on the removal of peremptory challenges. The responses indicate that, overall, surveyed Crown and defence counsel are concerned that the elimination of peremptory challenges will have a negative impact on jury trials in Canada. We explore the reasons for these fears in reviewing their responses to the survey.