1. Explain one factor that could influence the composition of a jury (2 marks)

2. Strengths and weaknesses of the jury system and possible reforms and alternatives to this system

3. Strengths and weaknesses of the jury system
Strengths/advantages
Weaknesses/disadvantages
Jury is trial by one’s peers Decisions of the jury reflect views of the common person. Person feels as though ordinary citizens they can relate to, not legal authorities, are judging them
The jury is not necessarily a true cross section due to those that can be disqualified, ineligible, excused or challenged as part of the jury selection and empanelment process.
Juries are independent and impartial deciders of fact, who have no past experience with the legal system and have no knowledge of anyone involved in the case – no bias
Some jurors may find it difficult to set aside preconceived ideas or bias that they may hold about particular types of people
Decision making is shared among jurors who are randomly selected from the community, rather than one judge deciding the outcome. The public may be more likely to accept a jury decision, rather than a verdict from only one judge
Juries do not give reasons for their verdicts o neither party or the public really understands how the case was decided and the reasons behind the jury decision. Critics argue parties should be given a reason by the jury for the decision (ration decidendi)
The jury system has stood the test of time for more than 800 years. If there were fundamental flaws, it would have been abolished by government long ago
Inconsistent damages awarded in civil trials and jurors therefore may need more guidance when awarding damages to allow for consistency

4. Strengths/advantages
Weaknesses/disadvantages
The jury system guards against Protection against the misuse of power as Jurors need not worry about the political implications of their decisions. Having said this, it is important to note that judges are also independent and free from political influence from the government of the day
Having a jury significantly adds to cost of the trial The use of a jury may add to trial costs because the judge will need to explain points of law to the jury and give directions — the longer the trial runs, the higher the costs will be. Civil litigants may find the cost of having a jury prohibitive and may, therefore, feel they are denied access to a just and fair process.
Ordinary people become involved in the legal process - this leads to a greater respect for the courts and an increased knowledge of the law
Complex legal proceedings may be too difficult for jurors as jurors may not understand complex and technical evidence or could be distracted by irrelivencies rather than content of responses. Judges can use their experience to assess reliability of witnesses in court.
Reducing possibility of corruption as decision making is spread, rather than having just one judge make the decision. Juries returning a majority verdict as opposed to a unanimous verdict may reduce the possibility of bribery or corruption as in criminal cases you only need one jury member to be bribed to return a not guilty verdict for hung jury
Majority verdicts threaten standard of proof Majority verdicts are acceptable for some crimes, whereas unanimous verdicts are required for more serious indictable offences. In criminal trials, the requirement of a unanimous verdict leads to an unacceptable number of hung juries, increasing costs and delays

5. Differentiate between a reform and an alternative for the jury system
A reform is an improvement on the current system used, whereas an alternative is abolishing the current system and replacing it with something different.

6. Actual Reforms to jury system
The Juries Act was amended in 2000 and 2002 to bring about a few changes
1.) ineligible and excused jurors categories amended – eg ministers of religion no longer ineligible
Ability to be excused as of right was removed – until doctors, teachers eg were excused automatically if desired
Use of majority verdicts extended to include civil trials with only 5 jurors in 2002 (so 4-1 majority)

7. Suggested reforms
Providing more assistance and education to jury eg preliminary training in court processes and procedures, evidentiary rules would help jury perform their role
Create more representative jury achieved by reducing number of challenges parties are able to do. Also, if we increase pay for jurors, those who suffer financial hardship and therefore excused for “good reason” would be reduced
Compel juries to give reasons for their decisions this would make juries accountable for their verdicts and also assist parties in understanding why the winning party won

8. Suggested alternatives to jury system
1.) Professional jurors: these people would carry out the same role as current jurors, but would do so on ongoing basis, so it was their career as employee of the state. They would be and become more familiar with court procedures and processes – however these people would become part of legal system, and therefore not technically “part of community” – would cause loss of independence
2.) Specialist jurors would be made up of experts in the field in question in regards to the case (eg medical experts, accountants). This aids the case as they would be able to understand technical and complex evidence. However, these people could be argued that they are not a part of the community. Furthermore, they could be expensive to pay as experts
3.) Trial by judge or judges juries could be replaced by trial by judge or a panel of judges. This reduces costs and delays and jurors not being able to understand evidence and processes. However, then the involvement of the community in the law is reduced

9. Please make sure you remember the difference between reforms and alternatives – they are different!

10. THE LINDY CHAMBERLAIN CASE
One of the highest profile cases in Australia's legal history was the Chamberlain case. In August 1980, Lindy Chamberlain reported that her baby daughter Azaria had been taken from the family's tent by a dingo, while they were camping at Uluru. Azaria's body was never found and suspicion fell on her mother, Lindy. A coroner's inquest held in 1981 found that it was most likely that a dingo had taken the baby. A second inquest in 1982 came to the conclusion that the mother may have been responsible. In 1982 Lindy Chamberlain was convicted of the murder of Azaria and sentenced to life imprisonment. This case had such a high profile, and was reported so extensively in the media, that it is difficult to imagine any jurors being empanelled who were unfamiliar with the case, and the judge made reference to this in his initial comments to prospective jurors. In 1986 new evidence emerged that threw doubt on the prosecution case and Lindy Chamberlain was released from prison. A Royal Commission found the conviction to be unsafe in and the conviction was quashed. A third coroner's inquest in returned an open finding. In 2012, a fourth inquest ruled that a dingo was responsible for the baby's death.

11. Mr Dingo

12. How jury allows for FAT
How jury system allows for Fair and unbiased hearing
How jury system allows for access
How jury system allows for timely resolution
Jury selection process ensures those who are ineligible and disqualified cannot serve – those who have prior experience with the legal system preserving its independence and impartiality
In a criminal trial, the cost of a jury is born by the state and ultimately tax payers
None
Jurors must divulge any acquaintance with parties ensuring unbiased jury
Challenge process allows legal counsel to remove any juror who they believe may hold bias

13. How jury system hinders FAT
How jury system hinders fair and unbiased hearing
How jury system hinders access to the legal system
How jury system hinders timely resolution of dispute
Some jurors may be influenced by the media or have trouble setting aside pre-conceived bias
In civil trials the party that requests jury is responsible for paying = $560 for first day, 2-6 days $408 per day and $810 a day after 7 days
Empanelment takes times
Some members of society, such as Aboriginal Australians, are underrepresented in jury system, so accused indigenous Australians are unlikely to be tried by peers
Trials with jury take longer than judge alone as legal counsel reiterate points and elements of law need to be explained to jury
Jurors may have trouble understanding complex evidence or understand court processes
Jury deliberations take a longer time than would be used for judge alone -12 or 6 people deciding

14. 10.2
3.) What is the difference between being disqualified from and being ineligible for jury service? Give three examples of each to support your answer.
4.) Why would people who are ‘sight, hearing or speech impaired’ be ineligible to serve as jurors?
5.) What ‘good reasons’ allow for a person to be temporarily or permanently excused from attending jury service?

15. Exam questions
1.) “Critically evaluate two strengths of the jury system” (6 marks)
“Our current jury system is not working in the best interests of justice – reforms need to be made”. Distinguish between reforms and alternatives. Suggest and evaluate one reform. (4 marks)
3.) ‘The jury system is a thing of the past and must be abolished.’ Identify and evaluate two alternatives to the jury system.
4.) Identify three errors in the following scenario, explaining the correct processes and procedures that should have occurred. (6 marks)
John aged 25 years was charged with murder. Four of the six-member jury returned a ‘guilty’ verdict and sentenced John to a 25-year jail term. John was upset with the decision, especially since he knew one of the jurors quite well.

16. 10.5 and 10.6
10.5
1.) Explain three strengths and three weaknesses of the jury system.
2.) Explain how the jury system can foster a greater openness and transparency of the criminal justice system.
3.) In what ways can a jury better represent community values than a judge, who may have had many years of legal education and experience?
10.6
1.) Identify and explain three features of the jury system that support the entitlement to a fair and unbiased hearing.
2.) Identify and explain three features of the jury system that weaken the entitlement to a fair and unbiased hearing.
3.) What impact does the jury system have on the right of effective access to the legal system? Explain your answer.
4.) Identify and explain three features of the jury system that hinder the timely resolution of disputes.
5.) To what extent do you think it is possible for an accused to receive a fair and unbiased hearing in a high profile case such as the Chamberlain case? Explain your answer.