Potential jurors in the trial of the former Taoiseach, Mr Charles Haughey, are to be asked for details of their opinions, occupations and business interests. It is the first time such questioning has been allowed in the State.
Judge Kevin Haugh at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court ordered that a circular containing 15 questions be sent to 800 people on the court's jury panel before Mr Haughey's trial for allegedly obstructing the McCracken tribunal begins on March 21st. The circular will be accompanied by a letter from the court explaining why such "extraordinary measures" have been taken.
The circular and letter may be sent to an additional 300 people if the size of the jury panel proves insufficient. Judge Haugh put a stay on his order until Monday to allow the Director of Public Prosecutions to appeal against his decision in the High Court.
Mr Maurice Gaffney SC, for the DPP, had argued that if the jury panel was given questionnaires in the post it might discuss them with neighbours and friends. He also said there was no basis in law for questioning jurors before a trial.
Mr Eoin McGonigal SC, for Mr Haughey, said it was an exceptional case, and the questionnaire was the only way to guarantee Mr Haughey's constitutional rights.
Judge Haugh had indicated last December that potential jurors for Mr Haughey's trial might have to be questioned about their background. Yesterday he said that in an exceptional case such as this it was appropriate to take the exceptional step of issuing the questionnaire. There was no Irish case law to act as a precedent for such a move, but he could find no legal principle which precluded it.
He added that he did not share the view that "ignorance is bliss" and said it was best that challenges to jurors be made from a position of knowledge rather than merely "pot luck".
Judge Haugh said further questioning of the jury panel to provide details in addition to their answers to the questionnaires might be a violation of the right to privacy. It was the court's opinion that the questionnaire could assist the parties in the case to select a fair jury.
The questionnaire was not to be used by the trial judge as a "sieve" to reduce the size of the jury panel, as had occurred in the Kevin Maxwell case in Britain.
Referring to a possible legal challenge by the DPP, Judge Haugh said he never looked negatively upon anyone exercising their constitutional rights. He noted, however, that Mr Haughey's trial was fixed for March 21st. The court was concerned that members of the jury panel receive the questionnaire well in advance of the trial.
He noted that the attendance for jury duty at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court was about 30 per cent so that an additional 300 members to the jury panel might be required in due time.
Earlier, during legal submissions, Judge Haugh used the example of a member of an extremist organisation, such as the Ku Klux Klan, being called to jury service. He said it was in the interest of justice that such a person did not sit on a jury panel, even though the person may feel they could try the case impartially.
Such an example illustrated the benefit of pre-jury questioning. He believed that a written response by jurors was better than replies to general questions asked by the judge in open court.
He noted that the Catherine Nevin murder trial had collapsed last week because a jury member had been embarrassed to disclose a medical condition until the case began. Written responses to questions would help alleviate such embarrassment.