Majority verdicts won’t see justice done

If the “rules” driving a jury’s deliberations are diluted, it erodes the concept of a case being proven beyond a reasonable doubt. A jury of lay people might not be willing to analyse evidence minutely if it knows it needs only a majority to end the case and go home. It may sound simplistic, but jury dynamics must also be considered.

Changing the jury verdict laws might be understandable if the change was designed to ensure justice was being done, but the New South Wales change is purely for political and courtroom efficiency reasons. It’s about trying to prevent the court’s time being taken up with re-hearing trials because of a “hung” jury.

It’s about cost-effectiveness, not justice. There is no evidence that the current system is failing, so why change it?

Anyone who analyses the court’s calendar would see there are more retrials by appeal in any given year than there are because of a “hung” jury. So do we outlaw or restrict appeals as well to streamline the courts’ efficiency?

It may sound far-fetched but if we are willing to throw away one traditional legal principle, why not toss out another too, in the interests of “efficiency”. Once you flatten the long-proven methods for determining justice, there is no template for what might happen next.

Queensland Attorney-General Linda Lavarch has been publicly guarded to changing the state’s jury verdict law, and I support her reticence.

The Attorney-General has been reported as saying there were no plans to change Queensland’s system of requiring a unanimous jury verdict, and no change would be made without full consultation with the community. I urge her to keep the Queensland system as it is now.

You must have a unanimous verdict for both acquittals and convictions. Once you start tinkering with jury verdicts, the potential for miscarriage of justice is enormous.

New South Wales will become the only jurisdiction, apart from the Northern Territory, to allow majority verdicts for murder. Rules for other jury verdicts around the country vary. In future only the Commonwealth, the ACT and Queensland will require unanimous verdicts for all criminal trials.

South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria, Western Australia and the Northern Territory currently permit 10-2 or 11-1 majority jury verdicts in most criminal cases, but not murder trials.

A requirement that all 12 jurors reach a unanimous decision minimises the possibility of a perverse juror derailing a fair verdict. Occasionally you have a hung jury but it’s not overly common. Only a tiny percentage of juries can’t reach a unanimous decision.

Although some states still allow majority verdicts for non-murder trials, all require a unanimous verdict for murder. With New South Wales breaking ranks, the disparity between states for murder verdicts will inevitably increase the inequity between jurisdictions. It will also attack the fundamental rights requiring a high burden of proof for major offences that can carry a life term.

We will see two different systems in the same country in which people can be found guilty. It will be chaotic, bad for justice and bad for public confidence in the justice system.

New South Wales has got it completely wrong. The unanimous jury verdict is a staple of our system and should not be changed on a whim. Queensland needs to show a firm hand and resist any moves to change its jury verdict laws.