ABSTRACT
At common law, the trial judge has a discretion to order police protection for the jury should he think it necessary. It is a discretion which must be carefully exercised and only if there is danger of attempts at jury interference or intimidation. The issue usually arises upon application by the prosecution, who must state in the presence of the defence the reasons for making it and call evidence in support if necessary. In R v Comerford [1998] 1 Cr App R 235, it was held that once the judge is satisfied that there are attempts at jury interference, he may, to ensure a fair trial, order protection for the jurors. Additionally, he may order that the names of the jurors be withheld and that they be designated by numbers. This is to reduce the risk of direct contact with the jurors by outsiders by making them difficult to identify. The English Court of Appeal stated that provision in the juries legislation which referred to procedures to be followed after a juror’s name ‘has been drawn’ did not impose a mandatory requirement that the names of jurors were to be called. They may be called by number. This latter practice is frequently utilised by judges in the Assizes in Trinidad and Tobago, who also find it more convenient.
