Damon Locantro has made a name for himself on the Sunshine Coast defending people charged with breaking the law. His practice, Locantro Lawyers, specialises in criminal defence but also offers services to those facing action by a government department. Damon has 15 years experience in criminal law and was formerly a NSW prosecutor and member of the NSW Police Service. Why have majority juries?
| Damon Locantro
Queensland Parliament changed the fabric of our criminal justice system when they announced changes to our legal system on September 11.
The system of a unanimous jury will now only apply to murder and other life offences that cannot be mitigated.
The jury act did require a unanimous verdict in all cases.
That is, unless all of the members of the jury are all satisfied in respect of an accused’s guilt, the jury would either come back with a verdict of not guilty (if they were all satisfied of that) or be hung, that is unable to make a decision.
The system has always worked on the basis that unless all members of the jury are satisfied, that is that.
Even if just one person was not satisfied the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt then the jury would be hung.
Now, after a minimum of eight hours of deliberations, if the jury has not reached a unanimous decision, the judge may ask the jury to reach a majority verdict.
The majority verdict will now mean that if there are 12 jurors, at least 11 jurors must agree on guilt or innocence. If there are 11 jurors, at least ten must agree.
In the event there are only ten jurors, all must agree on guilt or innocence.
The explanatory notes in relation to the bill state that:
“Majority verdicts can reduce the number of hung juries by ensuring that jury deliberations are not thwarted by a single person who is unwilling to engage in a proper examination of the evidence.
Majority verdicts thereby help give certainty and finality to criminal proceedings.”
It is a very radical change to the system that seems based on a tenuous possibility that one juror may not be participating in proper examination of the evidence.
To what degree must a juror participate and how would that be determined?
Not even the judge, defence, prosecution or government knows what goes on in the jury room.
It may be that that one person has engaged in a proper examination of the evidence but just does not feel satisfied of guilt to the requisite standard.
The bottom line is really, why should one member of the jury’s opinion be dismissed because they don’t agree?
If you are not a sheep and just follow the lead of the others, your opinion will not count.
This is of particular concern where there is never evidence that they have been unwilling to engage in proper examination of the evidence.
It may be that they can not make up their mind, or they have made up their mind the other way.
The answer to one member not engaging is to allow a jury to raise a concern of that nature before a verdict is called upon.
If one single person is unwilling to engage in a proper examination of the evidence, it would obviously be known to the jury very early.
I have previously written and believe that the process would be improved by a thirteenth person whose role is to facilitate in supervising the deliberations.
That role would take on significant importance because it would enable us to be satisfied that there is not a rogue juror unwilling to engage in a proper examination of the evidence, and if there was they could be removed.
That system would retain the important aspect of unanimous decisions.
Of particular concern to me is that the explanatory memorandum seems to just be devoted to reducing the number of hung juries but doesn’t speak at all of the significant change in the system as we knew it.
There are so many other issues.
For example, the system is now two tiered.
If you’re charged with murder, it must be unanimous.
Anything less and it only needs to be majority.
That fractures the system.
Innocence is just as important to a person charged with anything less than murder.
Of paramount importance though is retaining a system that we have confidence in.
There is no evidence that that the system was broken.
A majority verdict will not give the system any greater degree of certainty or finality.
The unanimous jury system should be preserved.
Have your say
Not Registered? Quick registration and comment.
Already Registered? Login and comment.
The path to economic recovery must be forged on the ... >>
Mark My Words : Carers for elderly need more support
Police Patrol : Last alcoholic drink was 10 hours prior?
Paul Munnings : It's elementary, pick Watson
Ashley Robinson : Stay clear of Roy
Through My Eyes : Crack open a beer
More RSS feeds
Install the news toolbar
Set up an email news alert 
Recent Comments
The need for consensus among all 12 jurors before a verdict can be recorded means that the
actions of one rogue juror will affect an entire trial, resulting in time and monetary cost for the justice
system and, ultimately, the community. However, more significantly, the failure to reach a verdict places
a huge emotional strain on the victim. He or she will either have to face the ordeal of a retrial or be
forced to accept that a verdict will never be reached. That is a significant burden on witnesses who are
often in extremely distressing situations. He or she will either have to face the ordeal of a retrial or be
forced to accept that a verdict will never be reached.
The victim??? Who the hell do they think they are that the justice system gives them any credence?? Anyway...
There is no evidence to support that a jury based on the verdict of 10 or 11 jurors is any
more unsafe than a verdict given by 12 jurors, particularly given that the evidence of a case will usually
have been examined up to three times before it is considered by a jury. There is, however, evidence to
support that some unanimous verdicts are the result of undesirable compromises with dissenting jurors
being persuaded to acquiesce to the majority view while not actually being convinced of the soundness
of that position. Compromise verdicts can also come about due to the gradual wearing down or
exhaustion of jurors. More disturbing is the situation where jurors in the minority may be harassed or
bullied into agreement with the majority view. This is especially the case where only one juror disagrees
for good reason.
Whether it be for the purposes of guilt or innocence...the majority verdict is a welcome relief, not just for the possibility of hung juries, but for economics and sane and fair justice.
Perhaps it is time for Queensland to adopt and consider the American system of jury selection which makes for a fairer, less biased more nuetral jury.
Majority verdicts in this State is not the way of the future but takes our judicial system back decades AND threatens the very core of justice in this State.
Mr Locantro, it is the first time I have ever agreed with you column.
Our sense of justice changes from year to year, government to government. But aren't these just words? The significance of a just society remains with its ethics and morality, doesn't it?
Whether it be the prosecution or the defence, both are officers of the court. Sure they both have their agendas, but in the end isn't the pursuit of 'right' the benchmark of true justice?
This amendment is going to weed out the stinking rogers in the jury system. If the judge senses confusion, they can give the jury a 'Black' direction at present. But there are no magic beans...just the hope that a jury will act fairly and impartially towards both sides. The 'neutrality' of a jury isn't going to be based upon the system, its going to be grounded in the mettle of the juror. If one or more have hidden agendas or bias, it won't be cleansed, no matter what legislation is enacted.
do you know anyone who was arrested and imprisoned illegally by the police by them lying to courts? by them manufacturing evidence and misleading magistrates?? I know a person who was extradited from queensland to nsw, imprisoned for 54 days before he could get bail and then had to travel to NSW every week for a further three months until the matter was thrown out of court. there is a massive police cover up about this case which goes all the way to the previous police minister in NSW.
With more damons available this sort of illegality won't happen.
and with unanimous juries there would be even less chance of this happening.
majority rules is a black event for justice in queensland - and we aren't falling into line with all the rest of australia - - check the facts before you mouth off.