Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CR-23-10000201-0000 DATE: 20240913 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: R. v. UMAR ZAMEER

BEFORE: MOLLOY J.

COUNSEL: M. Cantlon and K. Simone, for the Crown N. Hasan and A. Heine, for the Defendant

HEARD: November 9, 2023, and March 14, 18, and 19, 2024

Endorsement (Jury Selection)

Introduction

[1] Umar Zameer was charged with first degree murder in relation to the death of DC Jeffrey Northrup on July 2, 2021. The Crown alleged that Mr. Zameer deliberately ran over the officer with his car in the underground parking garage beneath City Hall in Toronto. His trial was scheduled to commence before a jury on March 18, 2024.

[2] In the late fall and early winter preceding the trial, I heard a number of pre-trial applications, including one about the jury selection process, and in particular about challenges for cause. Prior to starting to pick the jury, I made a ruling about how I would proceed, indicating that I would provide reasons for these rulings later. I also made rulings during the selection process. In some, but not all instances, I was able to provide sufficient reasons for my decision at the time.

[3] My reasons for the rulings on the applications follow. Also, there were two particular instances when I accepted a juror objected to by one of the parties. My reasons for those two decisions are also set out below.

[4] The trial commenced as scheduled on March 18, 2024. The jury began its deliberations on April 18, 2024 and, on April 21, 2024, returned a unanimous verdict finding Mr. Zameer not guilty of first degree murder and all included offences.

Categories of Challenge for Cause

[5] Crown counsel and defence counsel submitted that there should be three categories of challenge for cause in the jury selection process: (1) publicity; (2) race, colour, ethnicity, and religion of the accused; and (3) connections to, and opinions and beliefs about police officers.

[6] The accused is a brown, South Asian man and a Muslim. The deceased was a white police officer alleged to have been engaged in the execution of his duties at the time he was killed. He had been involved with other officers in the investigation of a stabbing that had occurred nearby a short time before plainclothes officers approached Mr. Zameer in the underground parking.

[7] The incident was the subject of intense media coverage at the time it occurred. A press release was published by the Toronto Police Service setting out their belief as to what had occurred. There had also been media coverage of the decision granting bail to Mr. Zameer, including negative comments condemning the decision by prominent figures, including the Premier and the Mayor of Toronto. A screening for potential jurors who may have been affected by news coverage was essential.

[8] It is undeniable that persons of colour and Muslims can be the subject of prejudice and stereotyping by people in our community. A challenge for cause based on race, colour, and creed was also mandatory to ensure the protection of the accused’s right to a fair trial in this case: R. v. Parks (1993), 15 O.R. (3d) 324 (C.A.); R. v. Ahmad et al., 2010 ONSC 256; R. v. Chouhan, 2021 SCC 26.

[9] Given the identity of the deceased and the fact that he was engaged in his duties as a police officer at the time he died, there was good reason to be concerned that preconceptions about police officers could have an impact, both positive and negative, on the ability of a juror to be impartial. There could also be a perception that individuals closely connected to police officers would not be impartial. I therefore accepted that this also should be a basis for challenging the impartiality of prospective jurors.

[10] Accordingly, I permitted challenges for cause under all three proposed categories. As I have already stated, both the Crown and defence agreed that inquiries should be made in those three areas.

Procedure Followed

[11] I agree with the submissions of defence counsel that straight “yes” or “no” answers to the standard Parks challenge for cause are not an effective way to explore whether a prospective juror might harbour biases or prejudices that could affect their ability to be impartial. I also agree that it is far better for there to be a degree of introspection before the prospective juror provides an answer to a challenge for cause question. It is preferable for each prospective juror to give some thought to the nature of the questions, why they are being asked, and the appropriate and honest response.

[12] In my view, there is no reliable information obtained by popping a challenge for cause question at a juror and having them answer it on the spot without time for consideration. What might appear to be discomfort in answering the question might simply be surprise about the subject matter or about why they are being asked these questions. In the past, when triers of fact were required to determine challenge for cause issues based on one question and typically a monosyllabic response, any hesitation by the prospective juror often resulted in that person being rejected. This makes no allowance for the juror giving careful thought to the question before blurting out the politically correct response. I believe that a careful answer after some reflection is more likely to be a reliable indicator of the person’s commitment to being impartial. I therefore consider it important that all prospective jurors be told in advance about any challenge for cause, the nature of the questions they will be asked, and the underlying rationale for such an inquiry. I want each prospective juror to think about these issues before I talk to them about it. I believe this approach is consistent with the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Chouhan. In this regard, I agree with and adopt the reasoning of Code J. in R. v. Stanley #2, 2021 ONSC 6110, at paras. 24-25.

[13] Particularly for long jury trials, and even for some standard length trials, it is now common practice in this jurisdiction to provide the prospective jurors with a questionnaire to complete before they are individually brought into the courtroom for a determination as to whether they will be selected as a juror in the case. This streamlines the process and highlights for the prospective juror what issues they might need to raise with the trial judge. I prepared a questionnaire in this case, which was distributed to all members of the jury panel. The initial questions addressed basic qualifications to be a juror. I also included questions about language, hearing or vision issues, and any health issues that might need to be addressed or that might make it difficult for this person to serve on the jury. A list of the participants and possible witnesses in the trial was provided and the prospective jurors were asked if they knew any of the people listed. The questionnaire did not include any of the challenge for cause questions. A copy of the questionnaire I used in this case is attached as Schedule A.

[14] I also asked a question about whether the prospective juror or someone they knew had previously been accused of, or been a victim of, murder or a similar offence of violence and, if so, asked for a brief explanation. This is not strictly speaking a challenge for cause type of question, nor is it directly a question about personal hardship. However, it has been my experience after nearly three decades as a trial judge that serving on a jury can be a difficult emotional experience for some people, particularly when they have had some incident of trauma in their past that the facts of the particular case might bring back to them. This can interfere with their ability to be impartial and also can cause undue stress. I have had potential jurors make deeply personal disclosures in their written responses to this written question, which I expect they would have difficulty raising orally in an open courtroom. I will sometimes ask them questions about what they have written without disclosing its substance publicly and may excuse them if I believe they would have difficulty making a decision unaffected by their trauma. Many of these issues are intensely private. This determination, of course, is a judgment call, but it is a circumstance I consider important to take into account. Neither side objected to this question being asked.

[15] I ended the questionnaire with a question about whether the prospective juror would experience undue hardship if selected to serve on this jury and provided ample room to give particulars.

[16] My standard opening to the full jury panel already includes information about the importance of being impartial and making a decision based solely on the evidence at trial. That instruction relates to the issue of having a connection to participants in the trial, for the same reason as it relates to any challenge for cause. I have recently added language to include unconscious prejudices and biases, in accordance with developing case law and jurisprudence in this area.

[17] My opening statement to the panel of potential jurors in this case included those standard instructions. I also told the panel what procedure we would follow, and told them that I would review with them their completed questionnaire and any issues raised, including the undue hardship questions. I also explained the challenge for cause process and its connection to determining whether they could be impartial in this case, as follows:

63. Once I have decided that there is no reason to excuse a prospective juror because of hardship or for any other reason, we will proceed to the next stage of the selection process. In this stage of the process, each of you, when it is your turn, will remain in the witness box, take an oath or make an affirmation to tell the truth, and I will ask you some additional questions that are designed to ensure that we choose an impartial jury. Let me explain the purpose of this exercise.

64. I have already mentioned to you that the proper administration of justice requires jurors to approach their task with an open mind. They must decide cases in an unbiased and impartial manner. They must be fair. For this reason, jurors are asked to swear an oath or make an affirmation to give a true verdict based on the evidence. That is why jurors cannot have a personal interest in the case they are deciding and cannot have a close relationship with any of the parties.

65. This case raises the possibility that some jurors may have difficulty approaching their task with an open mind because they have been exposed to publicity around this case. If a potential juror has read or seen information about the case in the media or discussed the case with others, the juror may have already formed views about the case. If the juror has formed opinions about the case, the juror must be able to set aside any opinions that they have formed and to decide the case only on the evidence.

66. This case also raises the possibility that some jurors may have difficulty approaching their task with an open mind because of biases, prejudices or stereotypes in respect to one or more of the participants in this case, including, in particular, the accused, Mr. Zameer (who is brown, originally from Pakistan, and a Muslim), and the deceased, Constable Northrup (who was a white police officer).

67. At some level, we all make assumptions and have beliefs, perceptions, and stereotypes about certain things or certain types of persons. These assumptions, beliefs, perceptions, and stereotypes are often based on personal characteristics. I will refer to them simply as negative feelings and assumptions. Sometimes we are aware of these negative feelings and assumptions in ourselves or in others. However, there are other negative feelings and assumptions based on personal characteristics that are unconscious ones. We may have them without being fully aware of them.

68. Our negative feelings and assumptions about personal characteristics, whether we are aware of them or not, can affect how we believe or disbelieve things we see or are told, or how we react to those things.

69. If you are chosen as a juror in this case, you will have to make a conscious effort to resist, and to help other jurors to resist, jumping to conclusions based on negative feelings or assumptions about such characteristics. Our system of justice is premised on the belief that once you recognize a negative feeling or assumption, you can and will set it aside. Your sworn duty as a juror will be to decide this case with an open mind based only on an impartial assessment of the evidence received in the courtroom.

70. For this reason, as I mentioned, when I speak to you one at a time, in addition to discussing things like citizenship, hearing, language, health, and hardship with potential jurors, I am also going to also ask each juror whose number is called a few questions about exposure to publicity and about the possibility that negative feelings or assumptions could affect the juror’s ability to judge the evidence and decide the case fairly and impartially. This will relate to personal characteristics of Mr. Zameer as well as to personal characteristics of Constable Northrup. I will be asking the questions to help us select a jury that will be truly impartial. I am going to make these inquiries of every potential juror. No one is being singled out. Each juror will be asked the same questions. The questions are not intended to pry into your privacy. You will not be grilled or cross-examined. I will simply ask you some questions.

71. When your turn comes, please remember to listen carefully to the questions and answer them truthfully. As I mentioned, you will either be sworn to tell the truth when you answer the questions, or you will make an affirmation to tell the truth. Some people prefer to swear to tell the truth by placing their hand on a holy book and making an oath. We refer to that procedure as taking an oath or being sworn. Some people prefer not to take an oath on a holy book, and instead make an affirmation to tell the truth. It is entirely up to you whether you swear or affirm. No one can decide for you. The law makes no distinction between the two. Either way, you are making a legally binding promise to the court that you will answer each question truthfully. In either case, you must answer the questions truthfully.

72. At the conclusion of the questioning, I will decide whether the potential juror is qualified to sit on the jury. If I decide a potential juror is qualified, that juror will then be sworn or affirmed by the registrar and will sit as a juror on this case. After a juror is sworn or affirmed, the juror will be taken from the courtroom and will be given instructions on when and where to return for the start of the trial.

73. At the start of the trial when all of the selected jury members are present, those jurors will be brought into the courtroom, and I will give them some additional instructions.

[18] After dividing the panel into groups, I proceeded to bring the potential jurors into the courtroom one at a time. I reviewed everything on their questionnaire with them and excused those persons for whom I was satisfied that serving on this jury would be an undue burden, usually because of financial hardship or health reasons. I believe there was nothing controversial about any of the decisions I made on those issues. With each person, after completing the review of the questionnaire, I proceeded to the challenge for cause questions.

[19] In the immediate aftermath of Chouhan, there was not complete unanimity about who should ask the challenge for cause questions. In my view, it is best for the trial judge to do that, particularly as it is the trial judge who must make the decision. I find that the process often evolves into more of a discussion than an interrogation, which has a much better chance of getting to the person’s real views on the issues. Again, I agree with the reasoning of Code J. in Stanley #2, at paras. 22-23. Although this is anecdotal, I believe the practice of the trial judge asking the questions is now widely accepted. There was no objection to that procedure in this trial.

Format of the Questions

[20] The most significant point of disagreement between counsel was with respect to the format in which the challenge for cause questions would be asked. The defence sought to have questions in a multiple-choice format, whereas the Crown sought questions more akin to the standard kind of question formulated in Parks (with some modifications).

[21] Also, the defence requested that I start by asking each potential juror whether he or she believed that South Asian or brown men or Muslims were “more likely than other men to commit certain types of violent crimes.” This was broken into two separate questions, one with respect to brown or South Asian men and the other with respect to Muslim men. The potential jurors would then be asked to select which of the following answers most accurately reflects what they believe:

(a) I strongly agree.

(b) I agree, but not strongly.

(c) I disagree, but not strongly.

(d) I strongly disagree.

(e) I don’t know.

[22] I declined to put these questions to the jurors. I also decided that I would not use a multiple-choice format for any of the questions.

[23] In my view, the initial two questions about the potential juror’s opinion as to whether brown, South Asian, or Muslim men are more likely to commit “certain types” of violent crimes are not fair questions to ask generally, and particularly not in the terms suggested.

[24] There is both an attitudinal and behavioural aspect to whether a juror can be impartial. The issue to be determined on a challenge for cause is not whether a person has an attitude based on a prejudicial bias or stereotype, but whether that person would set aside preconceived ideas or beliefs and make a decision based solely on the evidence, without regard to such prejudiced thinking. There is a solid line of authority for not permitting questions that are inquisitorial in nature and are based only on the attitudinal aspect of partiality: see R. v. Stanley #1, 2020 ONSC 6876, at paras. 26, 34, 37, 41-42, and 47-48 and the cases referred to therein.

[25] I consider it to be improper to ask prospective jurors, in an isolated manner, what their opinion is as to the criminal propensities of particular racial and religious groups. That is an inquisitorial and intrusive way of going about the task. Further, it does not yield useful information. There are complicated sociological and philosophical aspects to the question. Is it simply based on statistics, or does it presume some kind of inherited proclivity or something driven by religious beliefs? That is unclear. What does “certain types” of violent offences mean? Does it refer to assault with a particular kind of weapon? Or assault against women? Or hate crimes? Or gang-related offences? The question is ambiguous. Therefore, any answer to the question is also ambiguous, particularly when it must be chosen from a scripted multiple-choice set of answers.

[26] For these reasons, I refused to ask these questions. The fact that the proposal was to require jurors to answer this complex question by choosing a multiple-choice answer exacerbates the problem. It is simply too complex a question to require someone to answer in that forced manner.

[27] I also rejected the multiple-choice format suggested by the defence for the other proposed questions. The general formulation of those questions (related to race, colour, religion, and connection with police) was not problematic. In each of these situations, the potential juror would be asked if they would be able to decide the case based on the evidence and unaffected by these factors. However, the defence proposed that the potential juror choose from the following four options:

(a) I would not be able to judge the case fairly.

(b) I might be able to judge the case fairly.

(c) I would be able to judge the case fairly.

(d) I do not know if I would be able to judge the case fairly.

[28] I am not sure if there is any real difference between options (b) and (d). I am also not sure that a potential juror looking at those available answers would see any difference between them. More importantly, if they saw them as different, it would be important to know why that was the case. Without further explanation, I would not know how to interpret the answer.

[29] I agree completely with the submission that the traditional Parks question did little if anything to get at issues of bias and prejudice. I also agree that a simple “yes” or “no” answer is often not sufficient to address these concerns. However, all of the case law prior to Chouhan that permitted multiple-choice questions must be re-evaluated under the new system of conducting a challenge for cause. This will largely be up to individual trial judges. However, my own practice is to have a list of set questions, but to not be stuck with only those questions. Those fixed questions are the starting point. I make it clear to the person that they are not required to answer with a simple “yes” or “no”. I will often ask follow-up questions. Sometimes I will ask why a person has answered in a particular way, or ask them to elaborate on their answer. If I sense confusion or hesitation, I will inquire as to why. As I said already, it becomes more of a conversation than an interrogation. It is also often informed by discussions I had with the juror about other items on their questionnaire, such as the nature of their work and the kinds of judgment calls and decision-making that might be required. I am careful not to be intrusive into personal matters. However, I am strongly of the opinion that I get better information than I would receive if the person was required to pick one of four pre-formulated responses. I am the person charged with ensuring an impartial jury. I take that responsibility seriously. I find this manner of proceeding assists in making that determination better than multiple-choice answers. Therefore, I decided to proceed with more open-ended questions.

[30] In each case, after I asked my questions and before I accepted or rejected a juror, I had the person step outside the courtroom and sought submissions from counsel. If they wanted additional questions asked, I was generally amenable to doing that.

[31] Attached as Schedule B is the list of the fixed questions I asked each of the prospective jurors. During the challenge for cause process, I asked each of these questions, but also asked many follow-up questions depending on the answers given to the set questions.

Challenges to Particular Potential Jurors

[32] For the most part, both counsel agreed on the jury selection, both with respect to who should be excused and who should be accepted. There were two notable exceptions. The Crown objected to one juror, but notwithstanding that objection I accepted him. The defence objected to another juror, but I also accepted her.

[33] The potential juror objected to by the Crown gave unusual answers to some of the questions. However, I considered them to be intelligent and thoughtful responses. When initially asked whether his ability to judge the evidence in this case would be affected by the race, colour, ethnic origin, or religion of the accused, his response was that he thought it might be affected. This might initially seem like he would be affected by prejudice. However, when I asked him to clarify, he explained that the race and ethnic background of a person might cause them to react in a different way from a white male and that this might be a relevant thing to consider. I consider this answer to show that this prospective juror is sensitive to issues of race, colour, and religion, but in an open-minded way, as opposed to showing biased or prejudiced thinking. Indeed, there were issues before the jury that required them to take into account how a reasonable person in the circumstances of this particular accused would act. This is precisely what this potential juror was already considering might be relevant to take into account. When asked about unconscious biases, he responded quite reasonably that if it was a subconscious bias he would not know whether he had it, but he agreed he would keep the possibility in his mind when deciding the case. He also discussed working with geriatric groups with dementia and being aware of biases coming to the surface that might once have been unconscious. I found this juror to be sensitive, fair, insightful, and exceptionally well suited to be a juror. Notwithstanding the submissions to the contrary, I was confident he would judge the case fairly based on the evidence. In the result, however, he did not end up participating in the decision itself. I selected 14 jurors because this would be a trial of some length and there are still lingering threats of COVID-19 that might cause us to lose some jurors as the trial proceeded. At the end of the trial, all 14 jurors were still there and 2 had to be excused, by random draw. This juror was one of the two who were excused. Therefore, the issue of his impartiality is essentially rendered moot.

[34] One of the potential jurors disclosed that she had two close family members who were police officers, one who was retired and the other who is still a serving member of the Toronto Police Service. Notwithstanding this, this potential juror maintained that these connections would not interfere with her ability to judge the case fairly and impartially. With respect to one family member, she explained that they were estranged so there could be no impact. With respect to the other family member, she acknowledged having a close relationship but was very clear that this would have no impact. She explained that this was simply not logical. She said she was raised in a family with military connections and a keen sense of duty was part of her upbringing. As a juror, she would have a sworn duty to make a decision fairly and based only on the evidence, and the fact that she had a family member in the police force could not logically have any impact on that decision. Further, she said that the relative who was a police officer would feel the same way. That person would know she was just doing her job as a juror. Notwithstanding the objection of the defence that these connections were simply too close, I found this potential juror to be impressive in her candour and honesty. I also could not fault her logic. I believed her when she said she would do her duty and make a decision based solely on the evidence. I accepted her as a juror. The unanimous verdict of the jury was to find Mr. Zameer not guilty, notwithstanding the testimony of three police officers whose evidence, if accepted, would have supported a finding of guilt. Accordingly, the jury verdict also renders this issue moot.

MOLLOY J. Date: September 13, 2024

SCHEDULE A

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

R. v. UMAR ZAMEER – JUROR QUESTIONNAIRE

PLEASE FILL OUT THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONNAIRE AND BRING IT WITH YOU WHEN YOU RETURN. THE TRIAL JUDGE WILL REVIEW IT WITH YOU THEN.

(Please print or circle or check your answers legibly)

1. NAME: ___________________________________________________________________

2. JUROR NUMBER (ON SUMMONS): ____________________________________________

3. DATE OF BIRTH – DAY: MONTH: YEAR:

4. ARE YOU A CANADIAN CITIZEN? YES NO

5. DO YOU LIVE IN ONTARIO? YES NO

6. DOES YOUR EMPLOYMENT DISQUALIFY YOU FROM BEING ON THE JURY (FIREFIGHTER, LAW ENFORCEMENT, LAWYER OR LAW STUDENT, DOCTOR OR VETERINARIAN)? YES NO

7. HAVE YOU EVER BEEN CONVICTED OF AN INDICTABLE (SERIOUS) CRIMINAL OFFENCE FOR WHICH YOU HAVE NOT RECEIVED A PARDON? YES NO

8. DO YOU HAVE DIFFICULTY UNDERSTANDING SPOKEN ENGLISH? YES NO

9. DO YOU HAVE DIFFICULTY READING ENGLISH? YES NO

10. DO YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH YOUR HEARING THAT WOULD MAKE IT DIFFICULT FOR YOU TO SERVE AS A JUROR? YES NO

11. DO YOU HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH YOUR VISION THAT WOULD MAKE IT DIFFICULT FOR YOU TO SERVE AS A JUROR? YES NO

12. DO YOU SUFFER FROM OR ARE YOU BEING TREATED FOR ANY CONDITION THAT WOULD MAKE IT DIFFICULT FOR YOU TO SERVE AS A JUROR? IF YES, PLEASE BRIEFLY EXPLAIN: ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ YES NO

13. HAVE YOU ATTENDED COURT IN RESPONSE TO A JURY SUMMONS IN THE LAST THREE YEARS? YES NO

14. HAVE YOU OR SOMEONE YOU KNOW EVER BEEN ACCUSED OF OR BEEN A VICTIM OF A MURDER OR SIMILAR OFFENCE OF VIOLENCE? IF YES PLEASE BRIEFLY EXPLAIN: ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ YES NO

15. DO YOU KNOW ANY OF THE FOLLOWING PERSONS? (IF YES, CIRCLE THE PERSON OR PEOPLE YOU KNOW AND PROVIDE A BRIEF EXPLANATION) TRIAL JUDGE: ANNE MOLLOY CROWN COUNSEL: MICHAEL CANTLON AND KAREN SIMONE DEFENCE COUNSEL: NADER HASAN AND ALEXANDRA HEINE ACCUSED PERSON: UMAR ZAMEER A POTENTIAL WITNESS: (see attached list) ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ YES NO

16. THIS TRIAL WILL TAKE APPROXIMATELY 5 WEEKS TO COMPLETE. WOULD SERVING AS A JUROR FOR 5 WEEKS CAUSE A SUBSTANTIAL HARDSHIP FOR YOU BY INTERFERING SIGNIFICANTLY WITH YOUR BUSINESS, EMPLOYMENT, FINANCIAL, MEDICAL, FAMILY OR OTHER OBLIGATIONS? IF YES PLEASE BRIEFLY EXPLAIN: ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________

SCHEDULE B

R. v. UMAR ZAMEER

CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE QUESTIONS

You will recall that I instructed you earlier about this final stage of jury selection that relates to ensuring that each juror is able to be fair and unbiased in their assessment of the evidence. I will be asking you a series of questions that relate to that topic. Please listen carefully to my questions and be sure you understand them. You can ask me to repeat or clarify anything you are unsure about. You must answer these questions truthfully. These questions are directed to ensuring that you are able to make a decision in this case that is fair and impartial and based solely on the evidence at trial and the instructions I provide to you.

PUBLICITY

I am going to start by asking you questions about publicity. The deceased in this case, Constable Jeffrey Northrup, was a police officer. Just after midnight on July 2, 2019, he was run over by a car in the underground parking garage beneath Nathan Phillips Square, and he died from his injuries. Mr. Umar Zameer has been charged with first degree murder in relation to that death.

1. Have you heard, read or seen anything about this case in any form of media for example, newspaper, radio, internet, or on television or through discussions with others with respect to this case, Constable Jeffrey Northrup, or Mr. Umar Zameer?

2. (If answered yes to 1) Based on the information you received about this case or any person involved in this case, have you formed an opinion about the guilt or innocence of Umar Zameer?

3. (If answered yes to 2) Would you be able to set that opinion aside and decide this case based solely on the evidence at trial and the instructions of the trial judge?

POLICE OFFICER

1. Are you related or connected to any member of a police force, whether through employment, social relationship or otherwise? (if yes... describe)

2. (If yes to 1) Would your relationship or connection with any member of a police force cause you to be hesitant about your ability to decide this case based only on the evidence that you see and hear in this courtroom, and the instructions of the trial judge?

3. Reflect on whether you have any strong opinions or beliefs regarding police officers. Would you be able to set aside those beliefs or opinions and decide this case based solely on the evidence at trial and the instructions of the trial judge?

PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS

As I have previously instructed you, in deciding whether or not the prosecution has proved a charge against an accused person, a juror must judge the evidence at trial in an impartial way, without bias or prejudice. Bias may be based on attitudes or stereotypes related to personal characteristics of certain persons or groups. They may be very commonly held views. You may not even be aware of the attitudes or biases you have. All prospective jurors bring their own beliefs, assumptions, and perceptions to the courtroom.

As a result of attitudes that some people have grown up with, or experiences they have had, it may be more difficult for them to judge the evidence of a witness impartially, without bias or prejudice or free from any stereotypical attitudes. For example, some people believe that certain racial, religious or ethnic groups are more prone to violence than others.

In this case, the person charged is a brown, South Asian man, and is a Muslim. The deceased is a white police officer. Listen carefully, and take your time answering.

1. Thinking about your own beliefs, might your ability to judge the evidence in this case be affected at all by the fact by the race, colour, ethnic origin, or religion of the accused?

2. If you are chosen to be a member of the jury in this case, will you remain mindful of the possibility that you may have unconscious biases, and will you make efforts to identify such biases, to set them aside, and decide the case fairly and objectively?