Page 2527 - Week 06 - Thursday, 23 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
per cent of trials proceeding as judge alone. So the Greens have assessed Mrs Dunne’s amendments in light of the existing checks and balances and the prospects of appeals and unintended consequences. At the heart of it, we understand the issue that Mrs Dunne is seeking to address. We just believe that the proposal is not necessary at this time.
I have spoken at length today about prejudiced juries and how the courts deal with that issue. That said, Mrs Dunne’s amendments do cover another potential ground that may give rise to the need for a judge-alone trial. This is the scenario where the complexity of the trial or its length are beyond the capacity of a jury. The Greens have an issue with the premise of this ground that has not received as much commentary as the pre-trial publicity issue.
Having jury trials in place ensures that, however complex the law and however detailed it has become over the years, it is still able to be distilled into a format that is understandable by non-lawyers. This is another important aspect of jury trials. It guards against the prospect of runaway laws that have become so divorced from common principles and understanding that they are incapable of being explained to non-lawyers. This should be guarded against and jury trials, we believe, play an important part in guarding against it.
Justice Deane, when sitting on the High Court bench in a 1985 case, made compelling arguments in support of this principle. The case was Kingswell v the Queen. Justice Deane said:
Trial by jury also brings important practical benefits to the administration of criminal justice. A system of criminal law cannot be attuned to the needs of the people whom it exists to serve unless its administration, proceedings and judgments are comprehensible by both the accused and the general public and have the appearance, as well as the substance, of being impartial and just. In a legal system where the question of criminal guilt is determined by a jury of ordinary citizens, the participating lawyers are constrained to present the evidence and issues in a manner that can be understood by laymen. The result is that the accused and the public can follow and understand the proceedings.
I think those observations by Justice Deane are very significant in the context of the discussion that we are having.
I promised to be brief and I intend to stick to that. I simply say in conclusion that I understand that Mrs Dunne’s amendment has support from some of the profession and that the Greens’ decision will not be welcomed by all. However, as I have said previously, reform in the justice portfolio is made up of differing views. It is the job of members of the Assembly to listen to all sides of the issue and make a decision based on the evidence.
I think it is instructive at this point to touch on the advice from the human rights commissioner which Mrs Dunne spoke about. I acknowledge that the commissioner concludes by saying that “on balance I recommend that a less restrictive approach be taken”. What is interesting, though, in that judgement is that she says “on balance”. With respect to the email that she sent, interestingly, it was forwarded to us, despite
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video