?I shall well and truly try the matter at issue between the State and the Prisoner at the bar and a true verdict given according to the evidence. So help me God.? This oath, familiar though it may sound ? through American movies and John Grisham novels ? is nonetheless a very down-to-earth and sobering one. And very real indeed.

The oath is called ?oath by jurors? and must be sworn by all persons who are called upon to act as jury in a criminal case. Although not very well documented, trials by jury are very common and, by law, all criminal trials before the Supreme Court are required to be held before a presiding judge and a panel of nine jurors.

A few days ago, the jury in the case of the murder of Mir Mujeeb, a foreign businessman brutally murdered by a group of four people, returned a verdict of guilty for defendants Koonjul and Dookee. Both pleaded not guilty and, according to lawyers involved in the case, justice Paul Lam Shang Leen gave instructions to the jury, saying that there seemed not to be much evidence, linking defendant Dookee to the murder. The same was not true for defendant Koonjul. Notwithstanding the judge?s instructions, the jury returned a verdict of guilty for both. Sentencing being the discretion of the judge, justice Lam Shang Leen sentenced Koonjul to 30 years of penal servitude and Dookee got away with a five-year sentence.

Detractors of trials by jury have been quick to see in the sentences, proof that the judge was unhappy with the way the jury had performed its duty. The verdict and the sentence have caused a lot of unrest in the legal profession. It is being whispered that defendant Dookee might have been the victim of an injustice because the jury did not follow the judge?s instructions.

The judge is required to direct the jury in matters of law to help them reach a verdict of either guilty or not guilty. In his summing up, the judge is meant to state where the main question and principal issues lie, commenting on the evidence and affording such explanations as he thinks necessary.

The judge is required to direct the jury in matters of law to help them reach a verdict of either guilty or not guilty. In his summing up, the judge is meant to state where the main question and principal issues lie, commenting on the evidence and affording such explanations as he thinks necessary. The jury, composed of a panel of nine jurors, then returns with a verdict that is given by a majority of seven. They judge on the facts presented to them but with guidance from the judge.

The principle of trial by jury has its base in the very foundations of law ? that a person should be judged by his peers. The duty of juror is in principle compulsory. According to the Supreme Court (Jury lists and Panels) Rules 1992, ?every person who is qualified to serve as a juror and whose name does not appear on the list of jurors for the current year, shall make a written application (?) to be included in the list of jurors in the ensuing year.?

Every year, notices appear in newspapers, inviting people who qualify to sign up as juror. All civil servants are required to sign up although in practice, signing up is voluntary. To qualify as a juror, one needs to be a citizen of Mauritius, to have resided on the island for at least one year, to be over 21 and under 65 years of age, never have been convicted of a crime, be conversant with the English language and not suffer from any serious physical incapacity or any mental deficiency.

A panel of 50 jurors is picked randomly from the list of jurors for the current year and assigned to a trial. From the 50 initial jurors, only nine will be retained. The State represented by the State Law Office and the defendant are entitled to challenge seven persons peremptorily and any other person on good cause shown. The ?good cause? may vary. There are ?tricks? developed by counsels for the defence whereby they would challenge all those they deem could possibly be unfavourable to their clients based on such assumptions as a person of the same religion as the accused is more likely to be less biased than a person of a different background. The deal is to get the ?best? jury for one?s client.

The "best" jury can, however, sometimes not grasp the directions a judge is striving to give. The ?best? jury is also likely to be influenced by public opinion and therefore biased. This goes against the very notion of a ?blind? justice, in principle flawless. But there is no such ?perfect? justice, says a lawyer. The jury is supposed to represent the famed ?reasonable man? against whose standards all things are judged in law.

So can a jury be wrong? ?Yes, same as a judge can be wrong. Which is why appeals against verdicts and sentences exist?, he replies. Interestingly however, many convictions are being overturned in the United States because juries have wrongly convicted defendants?