Juries and Verdicts (HSC SSCE Legal Studies): Revision Notes

Juries and Verdicts

Introduction to the jury system

Juries are a fundamental component of the adversarial system in NSW criminal law. They provide an impartial judgment delivered by a panel of the accused's peers, based on evidence presented during trial.

In NSW, juries are used to hear most indictable offences where the accused has entered a plea of 'not guilty'. Jury trials may occur in either the District Court or the Supreme Court, but the Local Court does not have jurisdiction to conduct trials with a jury.

The key legislation governing juries is the Jury Act 1977 (NSW), which sets out the rules and procedures for jury selection, composition, and operation.

What is a jury?

A jury is a panel of citizens who are selected at random from a jury list compiled from the electoral roll. Their primary responsibility is to determine the guilt or innocence of the defendant based solely on the evidence presented to them at trial.

This role carries enormous responsibility and can be described as fact-finding. The decision reached by a jury is called a verdict. In most criminal cases, a jury consists of $12$ people who must work together to reach a decision.

Jury selection and challenging jurors

The challenge process

Both the prosecution and the defence have the right to challenge either the selection of the entire panel of jurors or individual jurors. This process ensures that the final jury is as fair and impartial as possible.

Types of challenges

Peremptory challenges allow legal teams to strike a juror without needing to provide any specific reason. Both sides can exercise a certain number of these challenges, though the exact number is limited. Because these challenges require no justification, they are typically based on superficial characteristics or intuition about how a juror might decide.

Challenges for cause are based on specific grounds, including:

• The person not being qualified to serve on a jury
• Being ineligible or disqualified under the law
• Being suspected of bias

Eligibility for jury duty

Who can serve on a jury?

Australian citizens aged $18$ years or over become eligible to sit on a jury once they are enrolled on the electoral roll. Serving on a jury is considered an important civic duty, reflecting the principle that an accused person should be tried by a group of their peers.

Exemptions from jury duty

While it is generally difficult to gain an exemption from jury duty, certain people may seek exemption, including:

• Those aged over $65$ years
• Pregnant women
• People who care for children full time

Who is ineligible to serve?

Several groups of people are ineligible to sit on a jury, including:

• People who do not speak English
• Emergency services staff members (police, fire, and ambulance officers)
• Disabled people (in certain circumstances)
• Convicted criminals
• Members of the legal profession

These ineligibilities are designed to ensure that jurors can understand proceedings and are not influenced by professional knowledge or personal circumstances that might affect their impartiality.

The role of jurors during trial

Being sworn in and taking notes

Before a court case begins, jurors are sworn in, making a formal promise to fulfill their duties faithfully. During the trial, jurors are permitted to make notes to help refresh their memory when deliberating over a verdict.

Listening and observing

The role of a juror during trial is to:

• Listen carefully to all evidence presented to the court
• Apply the law as directed by the judge
• Remain alert and focused on what is being presented in the courtroom
• Stay unbiased and impartial throughout the proceedings

Jurors are not permitted to talk to anyone about the case except for their fellow jurors when they are all together. They may ask the judge for clarification on matters of law or procedure.

The foreperson

Each jury elects a foreperson who speaks on behalf of the entire jury. The foreperson typically announces the verdict and communicates with the judge about the jury's needs during deliberations.

Maintaining impartiality

The jury is not subject to set time limits when deliberating over a verdict. They are encouraged to take their time and thoroughly discuss the court proceedings before reaching a decision.

Verdicts

Types of verdict

A jury is required to reach a verdict of either guilty or not guilty and present that verdict to the court. The outcome depends on this decision:

• If found not guilty, the accused will be acquitted and released
• If found guilty, the judge will then pass a sentence

Deliberation timeframes

Sometimes it is easy for a jury to arrive at a decision quickly. In other cases, juries can deliberate for days and still struggle to reach a verdict. The complexity of the evidence, the seriousness of the charge, and the personalities within the jury room all affect how long deliberations take.

Hung juries

A jury that is unable to reach a verdict is called a hung jury. When this occurs, the case is dismissed and a retrial will be ordered, meaning the entire trial procedure begins again with a new jury.

Legislative changes: unanimous vs majority verdicts

Historical context

NSW had a longstanding tradition of requiring unanimous verdicts in criminal trials, inherited from British law. This meant every single one of the $12$ jurors had to agree on the verdict. The UK changed this system in $1967$, followed later by many other Australian states.

The Jury Amendment (Verdicts) Act 2006 (NSW)

In $2006$, the NSW Parliament amended the Jury Act 1977 (NSW) with the Jury Amendment (Verdicts) Act 2006 (NSW). This legislation introduced significant changes to the verdict requirements.

The Act allowed for majority verdicts of:

• $11$ to $1$, or
• $10$ to $1$

Exception for Commonwealth offences

Arguments for majority verdicts

Supporters of the change to majority verdicts argue that this system:

• Removes rogue or unreasonable jurors who are unrepresentative of the community
• Avoids time delays and reduces the likelihood of hung juries
• Reduces costs to the justice system
• Minimizes stress on victims by reducing the chance of experiencing a retrial

Arguments against majority verdicts

Critics of majority verdicts argue that:

• Discounts the possibility of reasonable doubt if only one or two jurors are disagreeing
• Disagreements leading to hung juries are actually quite rare
• Majority verdicts may change jury deliberations from the beginning of the case, as jurors may be less motivated to convince dissenting members
• The unanimity requirement encourages thorough discussion and ensures all perspectives are considered

Juror understanding of instructions

Research findings

Significant research has been conducted internationally to determine whether jurors understand the instructions given to them by judges. A generally consistent finding is that jurors often struggle with certain legal concepts, particularly:

• 'Reasonable doubt'
• 'Intent'
• 'Presumption of innocence'

The 2008 NSW study

In $2008$, the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research conducted a study entitled Juror understanding of judicial instructions in criminal trials. The study surveyed over $1200$ jurors on their understanding of the criminal trial process.

Overall comprehension

Despite difficulties with specific concepts, almost all jurors ($94.9\%$) believed they could understand all or most of the judge's instructions. Almost half ($47.2\%$) stated they 'understood completely'.

However, certain groups experienced more difficulty:

• Younger jurors (aged $18$-$35$ years) were $1.3$ times more likely to say the judge's summing-up did not help in reaching a verdict
• Jurors whose first language was not English were almost twice as likely to say they understood only 'a little' or nothing of the judge's instructions on the law

Director's interpretation

Remember!