An Auckland man who told a judge he was not available to sit on a jury has been jailed for 10 days for contempt of court.



Engineering consultant James McAllister was given the brief prison stint by Judge Nevin Dawson yesterday after he refused to take on oath or affirmation swearing him on to a jury on Wednesday.



McAllister's lawyer David Jones QC told the Auckland District Court judge he would appeal the contempt of court ruling, and his client was released on bail.



The issue of contempt of court has been under review by the Law Commission since April .



Judge Peter Boshier said the judge-made rules were intended to protect the integrity of the justice system, including the right of a defendant to a fair trial and the finality of a verdict. However they were not always well understood and were increasingly difficult to enforce, he said.



When approached at his Remuera home, McAllister said he was unable to comment because of the impending hearing.



But his wife Dr Agata Errera was outraged by Judge Dawson's actions.



"You're not expecting to be treated as a criminal when you present for jury service," she said.



The couple had been overseas and when they returned to find the jury summons and it was too late to defer.



McAllister went to court on Monday and Tuesday but was not chosen for a jury.



He made arrangements to work on Wednesday after incorrectly being told there were no trials.



The maximum fine for not showing up to jury duty is $1000 and Errera said in hindsight, it would've been better to take the financial penalty.



"Now we're going to have to pay tens of thousands of dollars for the appeal," she said.



"We just feel upset because James presented for jury duty the whole week, he wasn't trying to get out of jury duty."



When selected for the jury, McAllister asked to speak to the judge and told him of his busy work commitments but Judge Dawson decided it was not an adequate excuse.



Errera said he was hamstrung by the fact he did not know the "etiquette of the court".



"It was just really difficult timing for us and that's all he was trying to say," she said.



As an alternative to the current system, she suggested people could be informed at the start of the year that their name had been drawn and they could inform the court when they were available.



"Instead of saying 'you must come here, regardless of what your personal circumstances are and your professional responsibilities'."