Attorney General Allyson Maynard-Gibson said the judicial system would benefit "tremendously" from a constitutional amendment that would allow some criminal matters in the Supreme Court to be tried by judges alone.
"One of the reasons for our backlog [is] the inefficiencies that are inherent in the jury system," Maynard-Gibson said as she made recommendations to the Constitutional Commission yesterday.
"I think that in certain defined circumstances, there ought to be the ability for the judge to order that the trial will be by judge alone."
Maynard-Gibson said analysis of empirical data by the Office of the Attorney General on the various factors determining the efficiency of the conduct of criminal trials over periods, points to the deficiencies associated with the administration of the jury system.
"These include the peculiar problems associated with small jurisdictions, where members of the jury pool may have to recuse themselves from matters where they know or are known to defendants. And the increase of insidious acts such as attempts to improperly influence or intimidate members of the jury," Maynard-Gibson said.
"All told, these have had a deleterious impact on the effective administration of justice."
Maynard-Gibson said cases that would be appropriate to be heard without the presence of a jury would include cases where the material witness is afraid or unwilling to give evidence before a jury; if the case involves a criminal gang element and would be properly tried without a jury, or if the complexity of the trial or the length of the trial is likely to make the trial too burdensome to the jury.
Maynard-Gibson noted that 22 Commonwealth countries have abolished jury trials, including the Turks and Caicos.
However, she noted that the right to jury trial is enshrined in the constitution and would require a constitutional amendment and referendum.
Former Chief Justice Sir Burton Hall made a similar recommendation to the Constitutional Commission in January.
He said the constitution should be amended to remove Parliament's ability to impose trials by jury for serious criminal Supreme Court cases.
Sir Burton, who is now a judge of the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, has been critical of the jury system for years.
When asked to expound on that recommendation, Sir Burton said the jury system is inefficient.
"[It's inefficient] both in terms of time and in terms of money," he said. "But more importantly... it dawned on me that something has to be wrong about the most serious criminal charges being determined by a body who gives no reasons [for it's decisions]."
During her contribution, Maynard-Gibson also defended the country's retention of the Privy Council as the final court of appeal.
Over the years, there have been many calls for the country to abandon the Privy Council.
"I don't think that it is necessary to change the structure that is now in our constitution," she said.
"I think the Privy Council has done an extraordinary and efficient job and everyone has the right to criticize judgements.
"In fact, they criticize judgements of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal.
I think that we should remember that whenever the Privy Council sits as the final court of The Bahamas, it is interpreting the laws of The Bahamas, as does the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal. "So the fact that we don't like the way they came to their conclusion is not a good reason in my view to change the Privy Council."
Earlier this year, Bahamas Faith Ministries President Dr. Myles Munroe recommended to the Constitutional Commission that the Privy Council be removed as the final appellate court.
In 2011, Chief Justice Sir Michael Barnett also said The Bahamas should eventually abandon the Privy Council and move toward the Caribbean Court of Justice.
Click here to read more at The Nassau Guardian
