Page 5742 - Week 17 - Thursday, 5 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
5
12. Indeed, the rule contrasts with the usual admission of good character to a jury which tends to displace the reality that there can be, in many lives, an uncharacteristic fall from grace. In other words, from a serial victims viewpoint, good character evidence may equally be said to prejudice the trial. Fictional judicial directions to ignore or to make limited use of target and/or so-called character evidence should cease. The legal profession must develop a code of conduct to prevent blatant manipulation of jurors through the improper use of target and character evidence.
SELECTION OF THE
13. The right to idiosyncratic pre=emptory challenges should be abolished.s and, failing that, reasons should be given to exclude the chance that the challenge is based on race or other discriminatory prejudice, such as being an ex-serviceman or -woman, having a beard, being a woman, being grey-haired or blue-rinse, being young and trendy. The original idea of a jury was that it would be representative of the community, not of the defendants social. class. Whilst the right of challenge for good cause should remain purposeful discrimination by Counsel such as eliminating all persons of non-english speaking background should attract the sanctions of the Discrimination Act 1991 (ACT).
14. The system of exemption from jury service should be reviewed. Ironically, the Juries Ordinance 196? is still the responsibility of the Commonwealth because the ACT (Self Goverment) Act 1988
7 *Simflar fact evidence and Limited on buouctifts" Criminal LAw Jowl lace 90 pp 157-179. 8 Challenging and discharging jurors* Richard Burton UX Criminal Law Review April 1990
5742
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .