There are calls for the publishing of national guidelines on jury vetting, following a Supreme Court decision which allows the defence to see a potential jurors' list of criminal convictions.
Jury vetting allows police to examine the jury panel list before a trial to check for criminal convictions.
At present, information on jury vetting is available to the Crown, but not the defence.
The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the Crown must disclose to defence lawyers previous convictions of potential jurors if those convictions will prejudice the accused's right to a fair trial.
The court ruled against making all information on a juror available, saying that would affect his or her privacy and security.
Victoria University's senior law lecturer Yvette Tinsley says regional inconsistencies mean some Crown prosecutors receive no information on potential jurors, while others receive details of their previous criminal convictions, domestic violence callouts and drug finds.
However, Auckland criminal lawyer John Haigh, QC, says the ruling will have little impact because the Juries Act means anyone sentenced to three years' jail or more is excluded from sitting on a jury.
Mr Haigh questions the relevance of jury vetting, given that a large number of jurors are disqualified under the terms of the Juries Act, and that juries are now able to ignore a rogue juror and return an 11 to 1 verdict.
He believes all information available to the Crown should be made available to the defence.
The Solicitor-General's office says it is considering the Supreme Court's recommendations that it look at introducing national guidelines.
