The Presumption Of Innocence And The Jury

Juries are an essential component of Queensland’s criminal justice system. However, the current jury system in criminal law cases does not effectively meet the needs of society. This thesis is established by first examining the role that juries play in the criminal justice system and the various interests of those affected by juries. This is followed by a consideration of arguments for and against juries and reforms that may be made to the jury system. Overall, it will be seen that there are substantial reasons to reform the current system.

Justice is the concept of moral rightness that is based on equality, access and fairness. This means that the law is applied equally, understood by all people and does not have a particularly harsh effect on an individual. In Australia, the adversary system is used as a means to achieve justice by proving the accused, beyond reasonable doubt, committed the crime. The criminal trial process has many features which aim to fulfill the requirements of achieving justice. These elements, though considers equality, fairness and access, are flawed in practice. Flaws such as the handling of evidence, jurors not understanding instructions, inadequate funds for legal

The New South Wales (NSW) criminal justice system has been separated into “two tiers of justice”. The two tiers of justice involve the separation of lower and higher courts, where the lower courts are comprised of Local courts and the higher courts are comprised of District and Supreme courts. The local courts role lies mainly in exercising summary jurisdiction whereas more serious indictable offences are dealt with in higher courts. However, there is more than just a jurisdictional divide and there are other aspects that significantly distinguish the lower courts from the higher courts.

The adversarial nature of the Australian court system is fundamentally implemented to ensure a fair and impartial trial for members of the public, yet this is not always the case. Access to justice, and the courts themselves, are often perceived quite variably depending on an individual’s experience with such institutions. In particular, it is often the disadvantaged in our society, such as those from low socio-economic backgrounds, youth and Indigenous Australians, who are the most neglected and disheartened by fair access to the court systems. However, this is not to say that the system specifically works in favor of educated, white individuals. The systematic approach to court processes, consisting of the apparent impartiality of judges and trials by jury, often impede the natural course of justice and do not allow for a fair and unbiased trial.

Juries are a crucial and irreplaceable part of the American justice system. The jury system has been around for hundreds of years. Our founding fathers viewed jury service as a critical part of democracy and self government. Twelve ordinary citizens make up the jury and will form a decision about the case. The jury system is still needed in the twenty-first century because it ensures the accused gets a fair trial and it promotes civic participation.

Trial by jury can be traced back to the 12th Century and has been an integral part of the criminal justice system since Henry II favoured it over trial by ordeal (Davies, Croall and Tyrer 2010, p.311). Although they are used in both crown court trials and civil cases, the introduction of the Administration of Justice Act 1933 has reduced the use of juries in civil cases significantly (Joyce 2013, p.208). However, they are only used in about one third of cases in the Crown Court (Huxley-Binns and Martin, p.220). Since the 19th Century, the statutory provisions for jury service have been amended and revised considerably resulting in the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Throughout this essay I will be firstly discussing who is eligible to sit on a

The jury system has been used in the criminal trial since the Constitution stated “the trial on indictment of any offence against any law of the Commonwealth shall be by jury.”

Juries made up of everyday novices are the most relied upon people in the district and supreme courts when it comes to a criminal trial. Ultimately, 12 people will decide the fate of a defendant and either see them walk free or be incarcerated. What happens if they get it wrong? Although a wrongful convictions are unlikely in Australia they are usually down to police corruption, misreported evidence or a jury’s misinterpretation of the case. Untrained, average citizens are making massive decisions with barely any idea if they have followed the law or not. Personal feelings or experiences can affect the interpretation of the evidence. Also with a state like South Australia with smaller jury regions, the likely hood of know someone connected

The New South Wale’s criminal justice system aims to meet the needs of its society through its role in maintaining fairness, justice and equality. However, many flaws and faults still exist in the system that does not always result in the most beneficial outcome for the whole community. From the inappropriate use of a jury in the criminal trial process, the misuse of powers from law enforcement agencies such as the police and the unfair bail conditions for young offenders, it can be seen that the criminal justice system is failing to meet the needs of its community by not balancing the protection of the community with the protection of freedom and rights of individuals. These issues need to be recognised and amended in order to ensure that

Jury nullification should continue to be recognized as a part of the Canadian justice system. The power of the juries should stay the same crucially because in some cases the defendant may actually have a reason to not be guilty even though they may be guilty for the crime that they have committed. Authors, Neil Brooks and Anthony Doob discuss about juries and the strengths and weaknesses about them and jury nullification. Chief Justice Fraser of the Alberta Court of Appeal discusses about Krieger 's Appeal and the strengths of jury nullification and how the jury following their conscience is sometimes better than following the “rule of law”. Paul Butler suggests that the law should expand jury nullification by allowing jurors who are the same race as the defendant who is guilty be free which I believe should not be added in the criminal justice system because of the many negative outcomes it may cause in society. Jury nullification is when a jury that takes part in a case believes that the defendant is not guilty even though he/she is guilty for the crime that they have caused by using their conscience instead of considering the facts that they have been presented by the law and that follow the rule of law. Jury nullification should continued to be recognized and the power of juries should be limited because of many reasons. Although jury nullification may be a positive factor to a defendant and to society as well, sometimes it won 't be if the power of juries stays the

The perception of the Australian criminal justice system’s legitimacy is determined by the actions of three institutions, and the manner in which they address issues of justice within society. For the criminal justice system to be seen with integrity and valued for its role, it is vital that all members of the community see the appropriate rectification of injustices through the police, courts and corrections. However, particular groups within society encounter the illegitimacy and social inequity embedded within these institutions, diminishing the effectiveness to which they fulfill their role. For women in particular, the institutions of the criminal justice system are notably unethical in their treatment of both victims and perpetrators of crime. Despite many reforms and recommendations for change, the criminal justice system ultimately fails in achieving justice for women, with the courts demonstrating the most significant attempt to eliminate social inequality and victimisation.

Justice Evatt delivered a paper to the Australian Legal Convention which entitled “The Jury System in Australia” in 1936 . Justice Evatt’s thesis of Jury trials was that “in modern day society the jury system is regarded as an essential feature of real democracy”. Jury trials in the nineteenth century were found way before in four colonies Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and Western Australia . When Trial by Judge alone was first introduced in South Australian thirty eight were held in the Supreme Court between 1989 and 1993, meaning all annual percentage of all criminal trials in the court ranged between 3.9% and 8.9% . The Juries Act SA 1927 was amended many times making some major changes. In 1966, women were introduced in the South Australian Jury system as only men were capable of serving on Juries. An increase to the number of jurors available to contribute in a criminal trial was amended in 2004 . It now states in the Juries Act 1927 under section 6A that if court agrees there are good reasons to add additional jurors of 2 or 3 it can be empanelled for a criminal trial .

In the Australian legal system, juries have been the subject of debate for many years. Should we have them for criminal trials or will justice be done better through trial by judge alone?

A jury is a group of 12 people aged between 18 and 70 who have been randomly selected from the electoral roll. Juries are only used for indictable criminal offences, these cases are held in either the District or Supreme court.

This essay will be looking at the advantages and disadvantages of the jury trial. Jury trial is a legal proceeding where a jury makes a decision, which then direct the actions of a judge. The members of a jury are a group of independent citizens. They have no interest in the case before them, nor is their judgment coloured by regular experience of the business of the court. They are “twelve individuals, often with no prior contact with the courts, who are chosen at random to listen to evidence and decide upon matters affecting the reputation and liberty of those charged with criminal offences.” The jury has always been drawn from sections of society but has been made democratic only in the last half century. And now almost all citizen of the United Kingdom are eligible to serve on a jury. But the percentage of criminal cases actually tried by jury is surprisingly low. Nowadays “the magistrates’ courts deal with at least 95 per cent of criminal cases. In practice juries determine the outcome of less than 1 per cent of the total of the criminal cases.” But still the idea of trial by jury has always been seen as a “cornerstone of the English legal system” , and it remains the standard mode of trial for dealing with the most serious types of criminal case. But even though it is established and been in practice for years, people seem to believe that there are disadvantages to jury trails. Nonetheless, the jury system is becoming increasingly controversial. Critics claim that