Page 2695 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 25 August 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The jury was described by one Frank McKinney-Hubbard in 1923 as the stupidity of one brain multiplied by 12. It is unfortunate that we do not have much evidence, much hard data, about the way in which juries actually reach their verdicts. Having said all that, I believe that the jury system is a bit like how Sir Winston Churchill described democracy, as the worst system except for all the others, and I think that we have some way to go before we can safely dispense with the institution altogether. Menzies suggested that juries are sound in criminal cases but not in civil cases. Juries in civil cases are not often used in the ACT; in fact, I am not sure that they are used at all, so we perhaps are in the best of both worlds here.
This Bill will give us the opportunity to examine the operation of this option as it is exercised by individual defendants, and I hope that it will give us some light on the value of jury trials generally and, in particular, their value in criminal cases. I hope that we will see at the end of a period that this has been a valuable exercise. I hope for that reason that the Attorney will take the trouble to come back to the Assembly and report to us on the progress of this provision in the law as it operates over the next few years.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (4.23), in reply: Yes, we will keep an eye on how this goes. I doubt whether many people will avail themselves of the right to go to trial without a jury, but some may. I was intrigued by Mr Humphries's extensive references from Sir Robert Menzies' memoirs about the frailties of juries. I think it was in either that volume or another volume of his memoirs that he told the apocryphal story, again on the frailty of juries, of the country jury in a theft case where one farmer was accused of stealing another farmer's cow. After extensive argument the jury came back with a verdict of, "Not guilty, but he has to give back the cow". The judge was disgusted and said to the jury that that was a completely inconsistent verdict and they had to go away and reconsider. The jury, after due deliberation, came back and said, "Not guilty, and he can keep the cow". So, clearly, jurors are sometimes fickle. I would say, as a caution to Mrs Carnell, that I would watch Mr Humphries if he is extensively reading Sir Robert Menzies' memoirs, because those memoirs do tell the tale of a person who was briefly party leader, was deposed, but eventually came back to wrest back the leadership and assume greatness. So I would watch Mr Humphries if he is reading Sir Robert Menzies' memoirs.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Leave granted to dispense with the detail stage.
Bill agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .