| LATEST | QUESTION OF THE MONTH | MEDIA MONITOR | ARCHIVES |
Sep2 |
QOTM: Judge and Jury - Will Justice Be ServedPosted under Question of the Month | on 2 September 2008, at 4:06 pmLandmark legal changes may allow extremely complex cases, or those involving an accused considered too notorious to be tried by a jury, to have a 'judge only' trial. The State Government is also set to introduce 'majority verdicts' for juries in all but the most serious crimes, preventing a single juror from causing a hung jury. The laws are set to be fast-tracked through State Parliament this month (August), with debate to follow. The trials would only take place with an application by the defence or prosecution. Applications from the prosecution would require the consent of the accused, but a judge would assess the merits of either type of application. Chief Justice Paul de Jersey welcomed the reforms, saying that in other Australian jurisdictions, majority verdicts had not led to adverse consequences. Opposition justice spokesman, Stuart Copeland said that reforms of the justice system were needed, but only time would tell if these proposals were the right reforms. Bar Association of Queensland President Michael Stewart believes the reforms should be restricted to exceptional circumstances. Discuss the introduction of these legal changes in relation to recent high profile cases:
|
5 comments
There have been a number of hung verdicts in Queensland's recent history, and the case for a majority verdict is well-known. Courts will save time and money through a reduction in inconclusive juries, there is limited chance of bribery or intimidation and it would be harder for cases to be hijacked by one person.Peter,
Surely the greatest disadvantage of the law reform regarding having a 'majority rules' scenario, is that unanimous decisions ensure there is no wrongful conviction of those put before the court. The exhaustive deliberation process making sure the jury's decision is right could prevent an over-reliance on an appeals tribunal.
Nia,
The move to majority jury verdicts is a step in the wrong direction. It will allow the opinions of the minority to be dismissed rather than being given their due weight, and will lead to an increase in the number of erroneous jury decisions. We should not compromise our criminal justice system in order to save money: what price justice?
Gregory Bihari,
There are too many cases (both legally and in society) where the minority brings things to a grinding halt. With a thorough jury selection process, the move towards a 'majority rules' scenario in our justice system can only be a positive in ensuring there are no delays. I don't see it as money saving.
Renee,
It will be interesting to see how the trial of an Ipswich pedophile, which is to be the first in Queensland to face a trial without a jury, will pan out.
This guy, Schloss has a long history of sexual assault on young girls, and there was considerable media generated by his previous cases. I think there was a lot of unnecessary media attention given to Dennis Ferguson earlier this year, but I also feel that we may be at risk of 'sweeping things under the carpet' when it comes to 'judge only' trials.
Tony,