And soon, only 11 angry men... (3 Viewers)

[Frigid]

interesting developments, but where goes the rule of law and proof beyond reasonable doubt? even a single dissenting juror is reasonable doubt.

the arbiter of fact should not be a democratic vote, majority-win, in my opinion. if 11-1, why not 10-2? or 9-3?

Law waves goodbye to 12 angry men

Every year, about 80 NSW juries fail to reach a unanimous verdict. And about 25 of those hung juries are the result of just one juror playing lone ranger.

The hold-outs might be from the same mold as Luke Shaw, who refused to accept that his political hero, Joh Bjelke-Petersen, could be guilty of perjury. Or Ross Clark, the foreman in the first Ananda Marga trial who was later vindicated when an inquiry cleared three men of murder.

Yesterday, the State Government announced plans to allow 11-1 verdicts for all criminal trials, against the recommendation of the NSW Law Reform Commission and to the disgust of the legal profession. "I would sit the politicians down in a quiet dark room and make them watch 12 Angry Men," said the secretary of the NSW Bar Association, Robert Toner, SC.

Questions remain over how long the jury must deliberate and the Bar Association, the NSW Law Society and the Law Council of Australia were all concerned it could be as little as six hours.

They also questioned the assertion by the Attorney-General, Bob Debus, that he was only bringing NSW into line with the other states, and England and New Zealand.

Only Tasmania and the Northern Territory allow majority verdicts for murder cases - after six hours of deliberation. And the High Court has them ruled out for federal offences.

Mr Debus acknowledged there were "legitimate opinions on both sides of the debate", but said he had the support of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Nicholas Cowdery, QC, and the head of the District Court, Judge Reg Blanch.

A "reasonable period of time" for deliberation would have to have passed before a jury was allowed to deliver an 11-1 verdict, but Mr Debus said he would consult judges and lawyers before introducing the bill next year.

Under a private member's bill put forward by the shadow Attorney-General, Andrew Tink, juries may deliver an 11-1 verdict after more than six hours' deliberation. However, the court could still instruct a jury to go back and try harder, if it believed insufficient consideration had been placed on "the nature and complexity of the criminal proceedings". Mr Tink cited the recent murder trial of Bruce Burrell, which collapsed because as many as two jurors dissented, as evidence for urgency over the legislation.

However, a report on the issue by the Law Reform Commission said the move could short-circuit dissenting voices during deliberation. "Juries may hang for good reasons and usually hang with more than one or two dissenters," it said.

The president of the Law Council, John North, who was defending an accused murderer yesterday, said jurors would no longer be considered equal because a dissenting voice could be silenced. "For something as serious as murder? No."

The Law Society's president, John McIntyre, believed the change would "water down the effectiveness of the jury system".

"I think the effect of this change is likely to lead to more innocent people being wrongfully convicted."

 

[erawamai]

Lets erode the golden thread to please the daily telegraph.

Even if the latest fellow is probably guilty thats not enough to change the law just because of one case. But probably guilty is not enough. It's guilty until proven and its Beyond Reasonable Doubt. You don't convict people when its probable they did it.

I would hate to think that one person in the jury after hearing all the evidence is unsure that that person is guilty. Thats enough doubt and thats the way it should be.

 

[Frigid]

if 80 hung juries must cause 80 retrials in order to save 1 innocent person from being wrongfully convicted, then so be it.

for fun, here's the full text of Woolingminton v DPP [1935] AC 462

 

[gordo]

doesn't the idea of 1 jury member having reasonable doubt undermine the essence of the system

1/12 basically means its ok to convict the defendant if there is a 1/12 or less chance he did it.

so if there is a less than 8.5% chance he did the crime, he should be guilty, is that a reasonable amount of doubt?

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Mr Debus acknowledged there were "legitimate opinions on both sides of the debate", but said he had the support of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Nicholas Cowdery, QC, and the head of the District Court, Judge Reg Blanch.

Well of course the bloody DPP is going to agree you cretin!

 

[erawamai]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/majority-verdicts-a-poor-judgement/2005/11/09/1131407697379.html

Seems like unsw's David Brown agrees with the legal community at BOS.

 

[Frigid]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/majority-verdicts-a-poor-judgement/2005/11/09/1131407697379.html

Seems like unsw's David Brown agrees with the legal community at BOS.

haha, not that our collective voices have any authority

i wonder if DB's opinion article is a massive hint for tomorrow's crim exam policy question

 

[erawamai]

Honestly, why shold one juror, who goes "well it's probably pretty damn likely he did it, but I'm just not totally without any hint of doubt" be valued more that 11 other people, who have heard all the same evidence and still believe in there mind that it is beyond all reasonable doubt that he did it.

...because justice isn't about majority its about uninimity. Especially when there is a presumption of innocence and especially when the person is most likely to be on trial for his or her life. You send people to gaol when you know they did it not that it is probably did it.

As we all know lawyers can make pretty good circumstantial cases these days and its not that hard to twang the emotions of the jury.

I'm really happy that Australia doesn't have the court room theatrics of the US. It's pretty disgusting.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

If they wanted to decrease the size of a jury then I might not mind so much, but it is the fact that someone who has heard all the evidence and come to a different conclusion gets excluded that worries me.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Shouldn't it worry you more that someone has heard all the evidence and managed to come to a different conclusion than 11 people sitting next to him.

Not at all, I often go to uni and have an opinion different to 20 people around me.

 

[Frigid]

At what point is it considered unacceptable then? 2000 retried juries? 90 000 retried juries?

I agree with this, as it is often quite possible to have a person with an altiroir motive who simply will not respond the the evidence in front of them, or alternately, may have an impossible to please level of reasonable doubt.

Honestly, why shold one juror, who goes "well it's probably pretty damn likely he did it, but I'm just not totally without any hint of doubt" be valued more that 11 other people, who have heard all the same evidence and still believe in there mind that it is beyond all reasonable doubt that he did it.

I think this is a good move which will stop the instances where one illogical person on the jury will prevent the accurate verdict from being delivered.

stop exaggerating and look at the figures, shuter. i said 80 juries in many, many total trials. what is the percentage? did you read the 'efficiency' saving statistics in David Brown's article? do you know retrials often happen for reasons other than a hung jury (eg miscarriage of justice, conviction quashed, sent for retrial)?

is it worth changing such a fundamental principle of procedural fairness? not that you would know anything about what procedural fairness means.

and even if someone had an "altiroir" [sic] motive, or was so illogical that he/she hangs the jury, is not a person's liberty more important the time/cost of a retrial? or do you automatically presume that a person is guilty because the majority says so?

unanimity of the jury is a fundamental part of our legal system, with history going back at least 800 years. to erode that principle for the sake of 'convenience' is simply stupid and political knee-jerk.

but what would you know about that? it seems that to you it is alright to treat jury trials like a game of Big Brother.

 

[ManlyChief]

I am in favour of the abolishion of the jury system in general. However, if we have it I support unanimous verdicts.

Plus I think the only thing to escape the lips of Mr Debus is foul, hot wind. Look at what he did to the Innocence Tribunal ... Shame ALP, shame, shame, shame

 

[306s16]

if 80 hung juries must cause 80 retrials in order to save 1 innocent person from being wrongfully convicted, then so be it.

Theyre hung?

 

[Frigid]

Theyre hung?

yes, they're hung like yesterday's dirty laundry. the trial is retried with a fresh batch of jurors.

 

[erawamai]

I am in favour of the abolishion of the jury system in general.

Oh you latte sipping, elitst, usyd, intellectual snob

Plus I think the only thing to escape the lips of Mr Debus is foul, hot wind. Look at what he did to the Innocence Tribunal ... Shame ALP, shame, shame, shame

I don't think Andrew Tink (Shudders...and then shudders some more) would have done anything different. He would make majority verdicts (say 6-5) and reintroduce lashings while making NSW prison population go somewhere 50 000.

 

[05er]

I am in favour of the abolishion of the jury system in general. However, if we have it I support unanimous verdicts.

Plus I think the only thing to escape the lips of Mr Debus is foul, hot wind. Look at what he did to the Innocence Tribunal ... Shame ALP, shame, shame, shame

<3 Civil Law systems.

But one failing of many, educated people here is the failure to recognise the force of cultural ties in cases. Whilst I know you're all aware of the tricks involved in picking a jury - pearls and a copy of New Idea being special features of a convincible jurist, some solticitors (or pro bono barristers) have been known to pick people of low socioeconomic status when defending people of similarly low status as "bonds of class betray their strength" (Robinson, Q.C).

Thus, some solicitors often advise their defendants that they've won when one such juror is selected.

N.B - The case is the same for racial minorities.

 

[ManlyChief]

<3 Civil Law systems.

I hate civil law systems more than juries - they will need to yank the adversarial system from my cold, dead, hands if they want to dispose with it ...

 

[MiuMiu]

Thus, some solicitors often advise their defendants that they've won when one such juror is selected.
.

Thats really oversimplifying it (I speak with some authority, I did a research project on this last semester).......the reason both sides have challenges is to mitigate the whole cultural/socioeconomic/age thing.

The problem doesn't arise at the empanellment stage, it arises before that in that younger people are likely to get off having to serve in a jury because of study, brighter professional people are more likely to try and get off because of work and stuff....leaving an overrepresentation of older Australians and unemployed Australians--arguably incompetent juries.

 

[santaslayer]

thing i dont get is, if one juror can point out flaws or doubt in one such case (and they can justify it) then the whole freakin case should be finished already. it doesnt matter if the other 11 still want the person guilty.

 

[ManlyChief]

thing i dont get is, if one juror can point out flaws or doubt in one such case (and they can justify it) then the whole freakin case should be finished already. it doesnt matter if the other 11 still want the person guilty.

Methinks the idea behind the move (apart from the obvious law+order politicking) is that the one person who votes 'not guilty' when all the others have been convinced must be irrational - a 'rogue' juror motivated by something other than the determination of the 'truth'. This argument is, obviously stoopid - witness the cases of one person holding out, later having his/her poistion vindicated with the confirmation of the innocence of the accused.

Has anyone read the Cheatle case to see if it offers anything to inhibit the introduction of this revolting legislation?