• Jury info, anyone?

Below is a follow up to a Progressive Think Tank post of mine.

I have been summoned to attend jury service.

I am looking for info that confirms in writing that a jury has the power to acquit under any circumstances that it chooses at all.

Can anyone confirm this for me in an Australian (specifically Queensland) context?

David



Well have not been called even to wait all day in the courthouse yet...will probably have to attend on Wednesday 22/3/06.

I have been doing some research about the rights and prerogatives of juries.

The information given out by the court system is quite useless. Its the usual patronising rubbish. 'juries are backbone of democracy blah blah blah' but very careful not to point out any rights or demands that a jury might in fact make.

I found a transcript of a Radio National program that featured a journalist who has served on two juries. He revealed that jurors can write down questions to be passed to the judge.

The judge is under no obligation to ask these questions, though.

I also looked in the Bench Book of the Queensland court system. This is not secret, but nor is it easy to find on the website, nor is it publicised.

It contains the approved forms of certain warnings or directions that may need to be given to the jury. It also included information that written questions may be passed to the judge.

No where have I found explicit confirmation of the right of a jury to acquit under any circumstances. But I have found some indirect confirmation of that fact.

For instance, when a judge is directing a jury to acquit, the judge must say that 'the verdict must come from you'.

There is no comparable text for an order to convict.

I have just made 3 phone calls - to a criminal defence firm that claims to 'never give up'. They referred me to the law society.

The Law society said they only handled solicitors, not barristers (barristers are the ones who appear in court) and suggested I contact the courts. After explaining that their information was not helpful or detailed, she said they only handled solicitors, and suggested I contact the courts. I asked who handled barristers, and she said the Bar Society.

The Bar Society referred me to the courts.

Thanks ladies (all 3 people I spoke to were female). Your committment to making sure juries are fully informed of their rights is just outstanding.

I guess I am not surprised. The legal system is notorious for being a club that does not like or want interference from the general public.

My plan is to wear my blue pinstriped suit, look as conservative as I can manage, and look stupid until I get into a jury room and have a chance to encourage people to consider their rights and powers.

Any last minute info or links would be appreciated.

Cheers David J

No required on Wednesday - any info still appreciated though

David,

I'm not sure exactly what information  you want  - or why you've asked....

Juries are free to acquit and  they don't have to  explain their decision (or give "grounds") Also the  Crown can't appeal  against an acquittal.   Once a  jury gives  a verdict of "not guilty", that's it.  The jury is discharged ,  the defendant goes free. and can't be tried (on that charge) again.  There's no doubt about this. It's fundamental to the whole system of trial by jury.

A judge can give directions to a jury which effectively apply pressure to acquit or convict - but a jury is still free to do what it likes. The only requirement is that the decision be unanimous.

Here's an article from the Australian Parliamentary Library called "Trial by Jury"  which mentions that a jury acquitted the Eureka rebels (presumably they were actually guilty according to the laws under which they were charged).

Wikipedia  has a series of articles on trial by jury (although without detailed  reference to Australia).

I don't necessarily think you need to appear conservative or dumb to be selected on a jury either.   It all depends on what the defendant has been charged with.

I was on a jury last year and it didn't seem to me that there was any bias toward selecting jurors who looked especially conservative or ignorant.  I found that my fellow jurors took their task very seriously and succeeded in putting personal prejudices to one side (it was a case in which the defendant was charged with a crime  which people tend to have strong feelings about).   We brought in a not-guilty verdict, despite some members of the jury initially assuming that the defendant  "must be an arsehole". 

It would be useful to be able to quote chapter and verse if I am in the jury room arguing for acquittal, for instance, on a minor drug charge.

Don't need this as such - I can explain to fellow jurors that we have the power to make the decision, and that no-one else may question that decision. The secrecy of the jury room and the double-jeopardy law see to that - I get that much.

But I would feel slightly more prepared if I could say 'according to this ruling under Australian law...'

 

It is true that once acquitted by a jury, there can be no appeal from that acquittal, with two exceptions in Australia:  in Tas and WA, it is possible to appeal to High Court on a point of law.

The rule extends to new evidence, misdirections of the jury from the Judge, and other cockups.  The policy behind the rule is to protect citizens from the state's power, and also for finality in the law.

After being acquitted, you could even confess on prime time television, and you could not be trialled for the original crime.   In Australia, you could not even be charged with perjury if you later contradicted evidence given under oath.  R v Carroll  (2002) 213 CLR 635

This does mean that juries potentially have an opportunity to diddle the system.  It is very difficult to do research into what happens in the jury room due to laws protecting the secrecy of the jury process.

The  rule of acquittal has been used both for good and for evil.  In the US, all white juries have had a reputation for giving acquittals to whites when the victim is black.  Closer to home in Victoria, before the law of culpable driving was introduced, juries were very reluctant to convict negligent drivers when their driving resulted in death, because the offence was manslaughter.  No doubt the jurors could imagine themselves in the possition of the accused, and felt that the charge was inappropriate for the crime.

The key case is The King v Snow (1915) 20 CLR 315,323,365

In that case, Justice Griffiths said: "The common law doctrine as to the effect of a verdict of acquittal is too well settled to require exposition, and it is too late to inquire into its origin."

There are probably good reasons to change the law about appeals from acquittals when new evidence is produced. 

 

Bug.