Page 5340 - Week 17 - Tuesday, 3 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
joint sitting of both houses of parliament, and that certainly is a somewhat onerous burden on any community. As I say, they are there to do a job. That is perhaps another point that needs to be looked at by this Government and the succeeding government.
Basically, Mr Speaker, whilst the jury system works fairly well in the Australian Capital Territory, as a result of this inquiry we found a number of areas where we unanimously agreed that there can be improvements. I am pleased to see that they are the unanimous views of the profession. I personally think that majority verdicts would be very sensible. Indeed, in a written submission, the Bar Association agreed. The Bar Association met and the majority of barristers agreed that such a system should be introduced and suggested a 10-2 majority. However, there are some dissenting views and alternative views within the legal profession on that particular question.
Whilst the main thrust of this particular report is the majority verdict question, perhaps it became a little bit of a sideshow to the additional points we found out about jury trials, and the further recommendations and discussion in chapter 10 especially are very important. I would hope to see those recommendations implemented as soon as possible, in the interests of the efficient administration and the fair administration of the criminal justice system in the ACT.
MR COLLAERY (10.51): Mr Speaker, I cannot agree with the proposition that we should do away with the "good twelve"; nor does the interstate and New Zealand experience support an assumption that retrials caused by jury disagreements will be less frequent with 10 jurors. Although I think this reference to the committee was mistimed, it has been productive and the committee's report represents an excellent compilation of the literature and the competing viewpoints.
I joined the Legal Affairs Committee after this reference was moved by Mr Stefaniak MLA (Lib). Had I then been a member of the committee, I would have moved to expand the reference, because the question of reviewing jury verdicts is but part of a much needed jury overhaul. In my questioning of witnesses I sought to elucidate support for my view that reforms in other areas are inextricably connected.
The committee's report alludes to the need for wider reform before a decision is taken to build a safety valve into the jury room. When reforms are implemented, I would be prepared to reconsider the question whether the single "nutter" in a jury room could be neutralised by an 11-1 verdict, in such circumstances only.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .