The Jury (VCE SSCE Legal Studies): Revision Notes
The Jury
Introduction to the jury system
The jury system represents a fundamental principle in criminal law: trial by peers. This means that individuals accused of serious crimes are judged by ordinary members of their community, not just by legal professionals or government officials.
The concept has ancient origins, predating the Magna Carta (a 1215 treaty between English barons and the King). The Magna Carta established that "no free man was to be imprisoned but by the lawful judgment of his peers and by the law of the land", making jury trial a fundamental right in the common law tradition.
The phrase "trial by peers" doesn't mean jurors must be exactly like the accused—it means they should be ordinary members of the same community, representing a cross-section of society rather than government officials or a ruling class.
The system serves two important purposes. First, it enables community participation in the legal process, allowing ordinary citizens to contribute directly to the administration of justice. Second, it ensures that laws are applied according to community standards, meaning verdicts reflect the values and expectations of society rather than just legal technicalities.
When juries are used in criminal cases
An accused person has the right to trial by jury when they have pleaded not guilty to an indictable offence (serious criminal charges). This means jury trials generally occur in the County Court and Supreme Court of Victoria, which handle more serious criminal matters.
Juries are not used for sentencing. Their role is limited to determining guilt or innocence. Once a jury delivers a guilty verdict, the judge alone decides the appropriate punishment.
Composition and selection of juries
A criminal jury in Victoria comprises 12 jurors. In some circumstances, particularly for lengthy trials where there is concern that some jurors may be unable to complete their service, up to 15 people may be empanelled initially.
Jurors are selected through a random process from the electoral roll (the list of registered voters). This random selection is designed to ensure a representative cross-section of the community serves on juries.
The empanelment process
Before individuals can serve on a jury, they must go through an empanelment process. This determines who is eligible to sit on the jury for a particular case. Not everyone can serve:
Three Categories of People Who Cannot Serve:
Disqualified persons are legally prohibited from jury service. This category includes some prisoners who have committed serious offences.
Ineligible persons cannot serve due to their professional roles. This includes lawyers, judges, and police officers. The rationale is that these individuals have specialist legal knowledge or connections to the justice system that might compromise their ability to decide cases purely on the evidence presented.
Excused persons may be released from jury duty if they have a valid reason, such as serious illness or other compelling circumstances that would make service extremely difficult.
Additionally, both the prosecution and defence can challenge potential jurors. They can challenge a limited number without providing reasons, or unlimited numbers if they can demonstrate good cause (such as potential bias).
The role of juries as fact-finders
The criminal jury serves as the decider of the facts. This means the jury determines what actually happened based on the evidence presented. They must answer questions such as:
- Was the accused at the crime scene, or were they elsewhere as claimed?
- Did the witness accurately identify the accused, or might they have been mistaken?
- Did the accused have the required mental state (such as intention to kill)?
This fact-finding function is distinct from the judge's role, which is to manage the trial process, rule on legal questions, and provide guidance on the law. The judge determines questions of law, while the jury determines questions of fact.
Four key roles of the jury
1. Be objective
Jurors must approach their task with complete impartiality. This means setting aside personal prejudices, preconceived ideas, and any biases that might cloud their judgment. They must have no connection to any party involved in the case.
The requirement for objectivity is crucial to ensuring fairness. A juror must decide guilt or innocence based solely on the evidence presented in court, not on assumptions about the type of person the accused appears to be or personal feelings about the crime charged.
Apprehended bias occurs when circumstances suggest a juror might not be able to remain impartial. Courts take this extremely seriously, as demonstrated in R v Goodall [2007].
Case Study: R v Goodall [2007] VSCA 63
This case involved charges of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child under 16 years. During the prosecutor's closing address, one juror displayed visible signs of emotional distress. The judge adjourned the trial and received a note from the juror explaining he had personally been a victim of abuse but believed he could continue.
The defence argued this juror was biased and may have "tainted" the other 11 jurors through discussions. The judge discharged the distressed juror but allowed the trial to continue with 11 jurors after confirming each remaining juror felt confident they could decide based solely on the evidence.
The Appeal: The accused was convicted and appealed, arguing all jurors should have been discharged. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, reasoning that:
- Jurors frequently experience emotional stress during trials
- This does not automatically mean they cannot perform their duties
- The jury's role involves collective deliberation by a fair cross-section of the community
- Jurors can manage and control irrational or unfair reasoning through group discussion
Key Takeaway: While jurors must strive for objectivity, the collective nature of jury deliberations provides a safeguard against individual bias.
2. Listen to and remember the evidence
Evidence in criminal trials can be complex, particularly in cases involving fraud, drugs, or other technical matters. Information is typically presented gradually through questions and answers, making it challenging for jurors to piece together the complete picture.
Jurors must concentrate throughout the trial and retain the information presented. They may take notes to assist their memory, though they must continue paying attention to courtroom proceedings. Failure to remain attentive is taken seriously—juries have been discharged when members fell asleep during trial.
Restrictions on jury investigations
Jurors Are Strictly Prohibited From Conducting Their Own Investigations
Jurors must not:
- Research the case independently
- Search for information on the internet
- Make enquiries about trial matters
- Seek information from sources outside the courtroom
Violating these rules can result in:
- Penalties for the individual juror
- Discharge of the entire jury, potentially causing a mistrial
Real Example: In May 2023, a jury was discharged after one member researched the case online. The juror was referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions for investigation.
These restrictions exist because the justice system requires verdicts to be based solely on properly tested evidence presented in court, not on potentially unreliable or prejudicial information found elsewhere.
3. Understand directions and summing up
At the conclusion of a trial, the judge provides jury directions—instructions about legal issues and points of law. The judge also summarises the case, reviewing the key evidence and arguments presented by both sides.
Jurors must listen carefully to these directions and may request clarification about any legal points they do not understand. This is crucial because jurors must apply the law correctly to the facts they determine.
For example, in sexual offence cases, the judge will typically direct the jury about the legal meaning of consent. This might include explaining that lack of physical resistance or protest does not necessarily indicate consent—an important legal principle that might differ from some people's assumptions.
4. Deliver a verdict
After hearing all evidence and receiving the judge's directions, jurors retire to deliberate in private. During deliberations, they must:
- Discuss the evidence freely and form opinions about which arguments they find convincing
- Make decisions without pressure or coercion from other jurors
- Work toward reaching a verdict
Deliberations are strictly confidential. Evidence about what happens during jury discussions is generally not admissible in court. This confidentiality enables jurors to speak candidly about their views without fear their reasoning will be scrutinised later.
Unanimous and majority verdicts
Criminal juries must initially aim for a unanimous verdict, where all 12 jurors agree on the outcome. However, if unanimity cannot be achieved, the court may accept a majority verdict (11 out of 12 jurors agreeing).
Important Exceptions to Majority Verdicts:
- For murder charges, the verdict must be unanimous
- For treason and certain drug offences, unanimous verdicts are also required
The court may also accept a guilty verdict for an alternative offence if the jury cannot agree on the original charge.
Case Study: Smith v Western Australia (2014) 250 CLR 473
This significant case examined what happens when jury deliberations may have been compromised. The accused was charged with two counts of indecently dealing with a child under 13 years.
What Happened: After the jury returned a guilty verdict, a note was discovered in the jury room stating: "I have been physically coerced by a fellow juror to change my plea to be aligned with the majority vote. This has made my ability to perform my duty as a juror on this panel [impossible]."
The Initial Appeal: Smith appealed, arguing the trial had miscarried because a juror had been physically threatened into agreeing with the majority. The Court of Appeal initially dismissed the appeal based on the exclusionary rule—a common law principle preventing evidence of jury deliberations from being presented in court.
The High Court Decision: Smith appealed to the High Court, which examined the purpose of the exclusionary rule. The Court found:
- The rule protects the secrecy of jury deliberations and the finality of verdicts
- However, it does not extend to evidence of unlawful physical coercion
- Juries must be able to deliberate freely without coercion
- Evidence suggesting a juror's verdict was unduly influenced required investigation
The High Court ordered Smith's appeal be reheard. When the Court of Appeal reconsidered the case in 2016, it ultimately dismissed the appeal after finding insufficient evidence that actual coercion occurred.
Key Takeaway: While jury discussions must remain confidential, this protection does not extend to serious misconduct such as physical threats. Juries must be able to deliberate freely without coercion.
Strengths of the jury system
Impartiality through random selection
Jury members are randomly selected, have no prior connection to the parties, and must base their decisions purely on facts presented in court. They are prohibited from conducting their own enquiries, which helps ensure their decision is not influenced by external information or personal investigations.
The random selection process from the electoral roll is designed to prevent any party from handpicking jurors who might be sympathetic to their case. This randomness is a key safeguard of impartiality.
Community participation
The jury system enables ordinary citizens to participate directly in criminal justice processes. This ensures justice is "seen to be done"—the public can see that serious criminal matters are decided by community members, not just legal professionals or government officials. This transparency and participation helps maintain public confidence in the justice system.
Collective decision-making reduces bias
Having 12 people deliberate together can reduce the impact of individual bias. If one juror has subconscious prejudices or irrational views, these can be identified and challenged during group discussions. The collective deliberation process means diverse perspectives are shared, reducing the risk that one person's bias will determine the outcome.
Representative of community values
Juries comprise a cross-section of the community, bringing together people of diverse backgrounds, experiences, and perspectives. This diversity helps ensure decisions reflect the values and standards of society as a whole, rather than the views of a narrow professional class.
This representativeness is particularly important in cases where community standards matter, such as determining what constitutes "reasonable" behaviour or whether conduct was sufficiently "offensive" to meet a legal threshold.
Weaknesses of the jury system
Potential for unconscious bias
Despite requirements for objectivity, jurors may harbour unconscious biases or prejudices. Because juries do not provide reasons for their decisions, there is no way to determine whether bias influenced the verdict. Even well-intentioned jurors may be influenced by factors they are not aware of.
Unlike judges who must provide written reasons for their decisions, juries deliver verdicts without explanation. This lack of transparency means there's no way to review whether the decision was based on proper reasoning or influenced by bias.
Complexity of trials
Criminal trials can be highly complex, involving intricate legal principles, technical evidence, and lengthy proceedings. It is uncertain whether 12 laypeople without legal training can fully understand complicated jury directions and technical evidence. While judges provide guidance, jurors must still comprehend and apply complex legal concepts to reach their verdict.
Delays in the justice process
Jury trials typically take longer than judge-alone trials. Rules, evidence, and legal procedures must be explained in accessible terms for jurors. Deliberation periods can also be extensive, particularly in complex cases. These delays can affect all parties, including the accused awaiting a verdict and victims seeking resolution.
Limited representativeness
While juries aim to represent a cross-section of the community, many people cannot serve. Those who are disqualified, ineligible, or excused may represent a substantial portion of the population. This means juries may not be fully representative of all community segments, potentially excluding certain perspectives and experiences.
For example, the exclusion of lawyers, judges, and police officers means that individuals with deep understanding of the justice system cannot serve. Additionally, people with caregiving responsibilities or certain health conditions may be excused, potentially skewing the demographic composition of juries.
Key Points to Remember:
-
The jury system provides for trial by peers, enabling community members to participate in criminal justice and ensuring law is applied according to community standards
-
Criminal juries comprise 12 members randomly selected from the electoral roll; they are used only for determining guilt or innocence in indictable offence trials, not for sentencing
-
Jurors must be objective (unbiased and impartial), listen to and remember evidence (without conducting independent research), understand directions and summing up (legal guidance from the judge), and deliver a verdict (through free deliberation)
-
Criminal juries aim for unanimous verdicts (all 12 agreeing) but may deliver majority verdicts (11 out of 12) except for murder, treason, and certain drug offences
-
Key strengths include:
- Impartiality through random selection
- Community participation
- Collective decision-making that reduces individual bias
- Representation of community values
-
Key weaknesses include:
- Potential unconscious bias
- Complexity of trials for laypeople
- Delays in the justice process
- Limited representativeness due to disqualified/ineligible persons