Jury Trial Danger !

The Attorney General has tasked a senior judge with a review of the jury trial system because trials are getting both longer and more complex.  The aim is to cut the time jurors spend in court and it has been made clear that there is no intention of reducing the number of cases which will be decided by a jury verdict.

This review will be carried out by the District Court chief judge Derek Price and the areas that will be examined will be the case management of trials to try and eliminate the need for jurors to sit through endless evidence unrelated to the trial issue.

Justice price explained the thinking by noting that in the case of an armed robbery the key issue would be the identity of the armed robber, but the jury might have to sit through evidence to prove that a robbery had actually taken place.

It was hoped that pre-trial agreement could be reached to concede that the robbery had taken place and this would eliminate a huge number of witnesses and court time.  This was an issue of " case management " and it had the potential to speed up the entire court system.

The Law Council of Australia is wary.   This hinges on the issue of pre-trial representation if agreement between the prosecution and defence is going to eliminate what may be heard by the jury. The prosecution is headed by senior counsel and very often the accused is represented by a lawyer appointed by the court.  Usually that is a young man or woman at the start of their legal career and lacking in court experience.

The vast majority of criminal trial cases involve negotiation between the prosecution and the defence to decide the sentencing outcome.  This is called " Plea Bargaining " and it usually involved an agreement by the accused to plead guilty in exchange for a reduction in the charges to be heard - and the prison term outcome decided before the case goes to trial.

There is a danger that an inexperienced defence counsel could give away issues that a more experienced barrister could use to sway that jury verdict.  In many cases the disproving of prosecution evidence on a minor matter is the key to jurors reaching a conclusion.   The condensing of a jury trial could be a concession that eliminated some defence opportunities.

There is also a danger that trials may be more directed at gaining public acceptance than delivering justice.  The public makes a judgement when a criminal is charged with an offence that carries a long prison sentence.  When that is later reduced to a lesser charge the prison time is rarely the time actually served.  Often, the convicted is eligible for parole and release after a short time behind bars.

A review of court procedures will be welcome, but all the relevant evidence needs to be examined in court to prove the charges that will lead to conviction or acquittal.  The accused must not be put in the position of agreeing to evidence suppression on the advice of mere court appointed lawyers.  The law requires the prosecution to prove its case.