Page 5740 - Week 17 - Thursday, 5 December 1991

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

gave the people a chance to judge themselves and to provide a community sanction for miscreant activity.

7. I am troubled by how far we have gone from the original notion. In recent days in the ACT, a Supreme Court judge has again denied a jury the chance to positively contribute, not only to a decision on a case in point but to provide a community-based rather than a judicial view of a matter very much in the public interest, namely, the use of police tactical response groups. In that case, the judge did not even address the jury and direct it to acquit the defendant. With great respect to the learned judge this event brings to a head concerns I hold about the almost powerless role of the modern jury compared with its medieval precursors.3

8. I imagine that a jury sometime after the Barons were tamed might have revolted at the prospect of being usurped. A courageous jury, in those days, may well have challenged a judges authority to direct them but not so in Australia - a temporised society which, from Timor to the Tasmanian South-West, is content to hand the community conscience over to politicians, judges and bureaucrats.

9. Rampant individualism now dominates that great lever for reform the free press. Those who would advocate law reforms are increasingly bought off with appointments as they slip away from the quivering blame mange of Australian editorialise, our trades halls and universities. Reform now lies outside the political deeply -it will come from the community and, in that context, the jury itself.

2 "The unmarked bicentennial o jury usage in Australia and some consequences of its decline" Alex Castles ALJ Aug 90 pp 505-510. 3 "Unsafe and unsatisfactory, the law as to directed verdicts 63 ALL pp 283-284..

5740

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