Jury system defended after trial aborted

Allegedly a female juror was bullying the others and had already decided Wood was guilty of murder...

NSW Attorney-General John Hatzistergos has defended the "sanctity" of the jury system, despite the high profile trial of Gordon Wood being aborted after allegations jurors planned to visit the alleged crime scene.

The murder trial was sensationally aborted on Wednesday after claims of a bullying juror and plans for a forbidden visit to The Gap in eastern Sydney, where the body of Wood's girlfriend Caroline Byrne was found in 1995.

Justice Graham Barr discharged the jury of seven women and five men after concluding at least one member had engaged in "misconduct".

The errant juror came to the court's attention after Radio 2GB broadcaster Jason Morrison received an off-air phone call last Thursday from a woman saying she was on the jury.

Despite his attempts to end the call, the woman said some jurors planned to have a private visit to The Gap that night.

She also said a female juror was bullying the others and had already decided Wood was guilty of murder - despite the trial being less than a week old.

All 12 jurors denied making the call when questioned in court, forcing Justice Barr to discharge the whole jury.

Mr Hatzistergos on Thursday expressed sympathy for the Byrne family but defended the jury system as an "enduring aspect of our criminal justice system".

"I suppose in this day and age, with the kind of scrutiny that the jury system is under ... and the availability of modern means of communication, in particular the internet, there is a great temptation for some persons to want to take the process into their own hands," he said.

"But it is very important that we preserve the sanctity of the jury, and the jury judges the evidence on the basis of what is presented in the court room within their sight and observation, and which is tested by the parties.

"It is important to recognise that the concept of trial by jury ... is an ancient and most enduring aspect of our criminal justice system."

Laws prohibited jurors from conducting their own investigations, Mr Hatzistergos said.

"The law prohibits them from doing so and, indeed, there is a penalty of up to two years imprisonment should that be found to occur," he said.

"Moreover they are given instructions both through induction material provided by the sheriff, instructions by the trial judge and moreover a handbook.

"Obviously, this is a difficult case, bearing in mind the precise source of the misconduct could not be identified, bearing in mind no juror would come forward and detail what was apparently detailed to one of the sheriff's officers."

A new jury of 15, instead of the usual 12 members, is expected to be empanelled on August 25.

Related:

Rogue juror: Wood trial aborted
The jury in the trial of Gordon Wood, the man accused of murdering model Caroline Byrne by throwing her off The Gap, has been discharged.

The game's up: jurors playing Sudoku
AFTER 105 witnesses and three months of evidence, a drug trial costing $1 million was aborted yesterday when it emerged that jurors had been playing Sudoku since the trial's second week.

Crime files reviewed under new law
South Australian police are reviewing as many as 10 old criminal cases, as double jeopardy [draconian] law takes effect.

Burrell to appeal again over Whelan murder
The High Court has ordered the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal to re-hear an appeal by convicted murderer Bruce Burrell.

Burrell sentenced to life for Whelan murder?
In his defence, his lawyers argued that the prosecution case was based on speculative and intrinsically flawed circumstantial evidence. What's more, Bruce Burrell's lawyers pointed out there wasn't a shred of forensic evidence linking him to the crime. Not a single hair, not even a microscopic trace of Kerry Whelan's DNA was ever found, despite extensive searches of his cars and property. [But the jury's guilty verdict demonstrates that a strong circumstantial case can be sufficient to ensure a conviction?

TRIAL BY MEDIA! or trial by a Jury?
Once a person is charged there should be a media black ban on that case until a jury has found the person either guilty or not guilty. If the media have the power to elect our political parties then they also have the power to find people guilty. Especially people who are being tried over and over again. Now with no double jeopardy rules and majority verdicts in NSW then high profile cases have become susceptible to being tried by the media and not by the jury in my humble opinion.

Mouse Trap Game? Tried Until Guilty!
Two New South Wales Labor MPs have strongly criticised the Carr Government's proposed abolition of the 800 year old double jeopardy rule, which stops people being tried a second time for the same crime. The left-wing MPs have branded the reforms as dishonest and unjust in a formal submission to the Attorney-General's department.

The game's up: jurors playing Sudoku

AFTER 105 witnesses and three months of evidence, a drug trial costing $1 million was aborted yesterday when it emerged that jurors had been playing Sudoku since the trial's second week.

In the District Court in Sydney, Judge Peter Zahra discharged the jury after hearing evidence from two accused men, one of their solicitors and the jury forewoman, who admitted that she and four other jurors had been diverting themselves in the jury box by playing the popular numbers game.

More than 20 police gave evidence in the case, in which the two accused faced a common charge of conspiracy to manufacture a commercial quantity of amphetamines. One faced further firearms and drug possession indictments. The prosecution and defence were due to deliver final addresses to the jury this week.

But last week, as one of the accused was giving evidence, he saw the jury forewoman playing what he thought was Sudoku. His co-accused saw it too, and the defence counsel, Adam Morison and Michael Coroneos, made a joint application for a discharge.

Yesterday Judge Zahra took unsworn evidence from the forewoman in which she confirmed the accused men's suspicions.

She said four or five jurors had brought in the Sudoku sheets and photocopied them to play during the trial and then compare their results during meal breaks.

She admitted to having spent more than half of her time in court playing the game. The trial, which started on March 4, has cost more than $1 million, including counsels' fees, staff wages and court running costs for 60 days of hearings. Judge Zahra, who had previously commended the jury for its apparent diligence, told the forewoman that the Sudoku players had let down their fellow jurors and all involved in the trial.

There is no offence under the NSW Jury Act for playing games or being inattentive to a degree that causes a trial to be abandoned.

Mr Morison said it was "extraordinary that 105 witnesses, including 20 police, had been in the witness box and not seen what was happening". He called on the NSW Sheriff's Office to update its guidelines to inform jurors that it was unacceptable to play games during a trial.

The office of the Director of Public Prosecutions must now decide whether to recommence the proceedings against the men.

Draconian power to discharge juror and bend trial

JUDGES will be given [draconian] powers to discharge individual jurors without having to abort a trial under reforms passed through state cabinet yesterday.

Jurors will be able to complain to judges or the sheriff about the conduct of other jurors to enable troublemakers to be discharged. [Bullying ???]

Legal counsel will also be given new powers to contest any decision by a judge to discharge a jury in the Criminal Court of Appeal.

The changes are to be introduced in the Jury Act in the next session of Parliament. They are [allegedly] derived from a Law Reform Commission report.

Judges are often called upon to discharge a juror when they are showing bias, have not declared an interest or are misbehaving, but often this causes a trial to be aborted.

The introduction of legislation to allow judges to discharge jurors and [bend] keep a trial going [allegedly] follows two recent cases where a juror's presence at a trial resulted in successful appeals.

In one recent case (Crown v Brown), a conviction was overturned on appeal because a juror had reported for service a day early and was empanelled in breach of the the Jury Act.

In another case (Crown v Petroulias last year), a judge's decision to discharge a juror because he had incurred driving offences led to a successful appeal in the Court of Criminal Appeal because the defence argued that the entire jury should have been discharged.

The Attorney-General, John Hatzistergos, said the proposed changes were the first of a series of reforms to come out of the commission's report on juries.

He said the change to allow jurors to complain about colleagues was important.

"They can complain and the judge can decide whether to discharge the juror," Mr Hatzistergos said.

"It's more to cover "[SMH] [situations]" such as where a particular juror has a conflict of interest they haven't discussed but it becomes apparent during the trial."

The shadow attorney-general, Greg Smith, said although the Government's changes appeared "reasonable", in practice jurors often already complained to judges if they had a problem with someone on the jury.

Quote: These laws are draconian and allow the Judge to push the jury around and sway the trial one way or another. Shame on John Hatzistergos, this creep wants to move trials the government's way when it suits the political agenda. This is not a trial by a jury of your peers. This is bullying. And why didn’t the Sydney Morning Herald get a response from civil liberties lawyers? Because they didn’t like it? Or they were too lazy? Or they want it to suit themselves because finding people guilty of crimes is in the corporate interest when it suits them? Shame on the (SMH) Sydney Morning Herald's bad reporting. What about balancing your articles? What did the Greens say? The most outstanding proposition is that the SMH in addition to these changes tried to make their article look convincing by adding to it some notion about juries getting more money etc and saving the doctors and professionals from having to appear, which is totally irrelevant in relation to the above article that is draconian.

[PS) a Google search for this article reveals the real truth i.e. "Did you mean: Power to discharge jury and save trial."]

[PPS) "The New South Wales Law Society says millions of dollars will be saved under new reforms giving judges the power to discharge individual jurors without aborting a trial." But it's not about saving millions it's about a fair trial and justice for all not justice for the state government, corporations or even the Law Society. How many millions does it cost to keep an innocent person in jail? So much for the Law Society's comment. ]

Related:

Ruthless and grubby: DPP lashes Morris Iemma's team
THE Director of Public Prosecutions, Nicholas Cowdery, has dumped a bucket on the Iemma Government, describing it as "ruthless", guilty of "grubby" tactics and saying it has "crucified" his office.

NSW Govt 'trying to muzzle DPP'
The New South Wales Government is fighting off accusations it is interfering with the independence of the state prosecutor by appointing a manager to his office.

DPP urges tougher child identity laws
The New South Wales Director of Public Prosecutions is calling for even stricter conditions on the naming of children involved in criminal proceedings.

Lift the veil and show us what the jurors see
The NSW Director of Public Prosecutions, Nicholas Cowdery, sees some problems in all this. He points to the tension between the public's right to know and the community's "confidence in the administration of justice". If the media edits or selects bits of the evidence the reporting would be very bias and unfair, unless you trust corporate media that is. Anyway I think this is right wing propaganda make up your own mind I guess...

TRIAL BY MEDIA! or trial by a Jury?
Once a person is charged there should be a media black ban on that case until a jury has found the person either guilty or not guilty. If the media have the power to elect our political parties then they also have the power to find people guilty. Especially people who are being tried over and over again. Now with no double jeopardy rules and majority verdicts in NSW then high profile cases have become susceptible to being tried by the media and not by the jury in my humble opinion.

In addition to this story and typical of the right wing corporate media propagandists with one saviour Nicholas Cowdery

Naming and shaming a bad idea, say MPs
A STATE parliamentary committee has rejected calls for juvenile criminals to be "named and shamed" and instead wants media blackouts on identifying children broadened.