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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 5 Hansard (15 May) . . Page.. 1594 ..

Mr Humphries (continuing):

The additional juror system was recommended by the NSW Law Reform Commission when it considered this issue. In its Report, The Jury in a Criminal Trial, dated March 1986, the Commission said it believed the additional juror system had advantages over the reserve juror system. The Commission referred to the following comments which are contained in a report of the American Bar Association:

A preference for the additional juror system has sometimes been stated on the ground that it is undesirable to give a juror who may be involved in deciding the case second class standing during some or all of the trial. That is, one who is labelled an alternate at the outset might not take his job as seriously as the regular jurors as the chances of substitution are not great. On the other hand, where one or two additional jurors are selected each member of the thirteen or fourteen man group knows that even if no juror is excused for cause he nonetheless has a very substantial chance of being involved in the deliberations.

As events transpired, New South Wales has not adopted either the additional juror or the reserve juror systems. However, three other Australian jurisdictions, Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory, have adopted the reserve juror system.

The ACT will be breaking new ground in Australia in adopting the additional juror system. Its advantages are, I believe, overwhelmingly convincing.

In a further reform, the Bill contains provisions to protect the identity of jurors and to ensure the confidentiality of jury deliberations.

Members will appreciate that it is vital in the overall interests of justice to ensure that the public's confidence in the operation of the jury system is maintained. This can only be done if jurors can be sure that their deliberations are not exposed to the public gaze and that that jurors are free from external pressures. What happened following the Simpson criminal trial in California in 1995 demonstrates what can happen when jurors are permitted to go public with their accounts of experiences in the jury room. I do not believe that disclosures of this nature do anything to advance the interests of justice.

With this in mind, the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General agreed that States and Territories should introduce uniform legislation as a minimum standard for the protection of the confidentiality of jury deliberations and to prevent the disclosure of the identity of jurors. Model legislation endorsed by the Standing Committee has been incorporated into the Bill.

The new provisions will apply to juries involved in criminal, civil or coronial proceedings in a court of the Territory, the Commonwealth, a State or another Territory. It will apply to proceedings whether they were instituted before or after the commencement of the new provisions.

The Bill ensures the confidentiality of the jury process by creating three new offences of:

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