Jury debate

THE recent trial jury in Canberra (Brittney Higgins – complainant) was discharged because of misfeasance on the part of at least one juror.

That led to the trial being aborted by order of the trial judge.

The particular cause for the discharge was the failure of that or possibly more jurors to heed the direction by the judge not to carry out independent research into the offence but to only consider the evidence led in court.

Unfortunately this misfeasance is not uncommon.

I am able to vouch for that. Another instance occurred in one of the states only this week.

It is becoming more common. The action by a freelance juror is difficult to police.

In this instance it was only the sharp-eyed bailiff that brought this instance of disobedience to light.

The retention of the jury system is, I believe, outmoded.

Many prospective jurors are well educated and it is hard for them to resist the temptation to carry out further research into facets of the case. If they do, it is ignorant to us. The goings on in the jury are secret.

Many centuries ago, the jury did not have access to the many facilities of research and analysis available today.

During the recent pandemic, there were more trials by judge alone caused by the absence of jury panels according to the prevailing instances of restrictions on travel.

It is a pleasing to see that a judge must give reasons in detail for his or her decision. Whereas a jury doesn’t.

Most of the criminal trials in Canada are by judge alone.

I believe it is time to loosen the shackles and adhere to the conditions of the modern world.

Judges today are more worldly and fully conversant with community expectations.

Of course my remarks only apply to Queensland offences.

Federal offences are guided by the Federal Constriction where trial by jury is mandated.

Bill McMillan, Toowoomba