Overview Of The Queensland Jury Act 1995

1.0 Introduction

Section 80 guarantees the right to trial by jury. The Queensland Jury Act 1995 provides the current legislation which decrees that all trials on indictment must be by jury. In the ninety years since this legislation was passed, an increase of trial complexity has occurred, leaving many jurors with the inability to comprehend the information and evidence procured in a trial. This proceeds to make lay juries ineffective and unreliable. To remedy the situation, specialised juries should be introduced to minimize the amount of incorrect verdicts, misunderstandings in court, jury misconduct, and avoidance of jury duty.

2.0 Findings

2.1 Review of current issue

Section 80 of the constitution declares that “the trial on indictment

For example, a New South Wales study in 2004 showed that of the people who plead not guilty in sexual assault cases, 67% of them are acquitted (refer to Appendices A). The study also showed that “the percentage of finalized defendants pleading not guilty who were acquitted in the higher courts was highest for sexual assault cases”. The reason for this is suggested to be pre-existing attitudes towards sexual assault and the common myths and stereotypes regarding rape and sexual violence in the community which leads to an incorrect verdict being made (Taylor, 2007). This would negative effect the prosecutor. The introduction of a specialist jury made up of – in these cases specifically – forensic examiners and psychologists would allow for more accurate verdicts. In rape cases specifically, a sexual assault forensic exam can be performed on the victim and examined by the forensic examiners to assure the rape did occur. An inclusion of psychologists would lower the bias of the jury as psychologists are educated on the trauma experienced by rape victims and do not have the same negative attitude towards rape victims as many citizens have. A study from 2007 regarding jury accuracy shows how negatively the legislation can also affect the defendant, as juries gave the wrong verdict approximately one in eight times (Tremmel,

However, there have been multiple cases in which a juror has researched legal terms used in court due to the inability to comprehend the language used. An example of this is the Wardlaw v. State case in which a jury member researched a mental illness the defendant claimed to have alongside the symptoms of said illness as to see whether lying was a symptom (Eltis, 2012).

Another example is the case of Tapanes v. State in which a juror looked up the definition of the word “prudence” during a break from deliberations. He proceeded to share the information discovered with his fellow jurors. This resulted in the defendant filing a motion which resulting in a new case with a new trial (Brown, 2010).

2.5 Aspects of issue not covered under current law

While judges do have the ability to order suppression orders, in which media outlets are not able to report on cases, generally there is no law suppressing media coverage (Carrick, 2011). As the media has a significant impact on the jurors, allowing reports encourages