Page 5738 - Week 17 - Thursday, 5 December 1991

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

INTRODUCTION

1. 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 would be less frequent with ten jurors. Although I think this reference to the Committee was mistimed, it has been productive and the Committees report represents an excellent compilation of the literature and the competing viewpoints.

2. 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 Committees 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.

3. Jurists are properly alarmed when righteous-minded elements in our community seek to pursue the verdict they want into the jury room. Recent comments by the Queensland Premier, Mr Wayne Goss, and the Queensland, Attorney-General, Mr Dean Wells, suggesting that there needed to be an inquiry into the activities of the jury and/or a juror in the Peterson perjury trial are a matter

1 "Hung Juries or majority verdicts: The jury on trial" Brookbanim NAZI June 91 pp i88-190 5738

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .