We then come down to -

'3. A practising legal practitioner.'

So that would mean that a practising member cannot of course be on a jury but tomorrow, if they are no longer practising members, as I interpret this, they can be part of a jury.
We then go down to item 5. where a police officer, who is a pillar of society, I might say, has to be out of that organisation for a period of 10 years before they can be considered to be part of the jury. I really do find that to be an anomaly and I question the member as to why that would be the situation. I just cannot imagine or understand why that is currently the position.

Mr Aird - Yes, they know too many crooks.

Mr DEAN - No, no, no. Perhaps an explanation could be given and I seem to think that perhaps it is an oversight and perhaps the 10-year requirement was meant to be there as well.

Mr PARKINSON - It is not an oversight. The general thinking behind police officers is that they are very familiar with individuals in society, particularly those who are known to be involved in crime or criminal activity and the period of 10 years is designed to try to ensure that the system remains fair and that you do not have people on juries with preconceived ideas about persons who are charged with offences. The difference between a police officer and a lawyer is very stark in this respect because whereas lawyers might represent people who are charged with crimes, they generally are not aware of who in the community are the criminals. It is not an anomaly, is what I am trying to put.

Mr Dean - I can accept that with a family court lawyer and what have you but a criminal lawyer involved in a magistrates court on a very frequent basis, I would suggest that their knowledge of people outside in the criminal world would probably be as good as that of many police officers, if not better.

Mr PARKINSON - Again, I dispute that, but the honourable member is entitled to his opinion there. There is another reality here, too - and it is only a personal opinion - I myself feel that in the case of the defence counsel they are more likely to be members of juries who would take a sympathetic view because of the practice of requiring that a person be deemed innocent until proven guilty whereas I think police - and I am not being critical in saying that - because of the nature of their work are more inclined to the view 'I've got you' once there is a bit of evidence floating around - 'Bang, you're it'. It is just a different mentality, so it is not an anomaly really, I think it is trying to keep the system fair.