Activity 2l

1. The task word ‘discuss’ require students to consider both sides of something. In this case, ‘discussing’ the ability of theresponsibilities of the juryto achieve theprinciples of justice requires students to write about relevant strengths and weaknesses. Responses will vary according to the arguments selected.

          Arguments in support of theresponsibilities of the juryachieving the principles of justice include:

• The jury giving the accused a trial by their peers can protect the accused from the power of the state. The government investigates the crime, prosecutes the suspect, and appoints the judges that hear the case. The layperson jury protects democracy and the rights of the individual against the government.
• The presence of the jury can ensure that legal arguments and procedures are able to be understood by the accused, because the judge and legal representatives may be more careful to speak in a way that the non-legal members of the jury can understand. This makes the trial more accessible tothe accused and to the public gallery.
• By spreading the burden of reaching a verdict across 12 shoulders, the jury system creates the best opportunity to catch errors and to balance prejudices. Such a high level of agreement must be had in the verdict – either unanimous or all jurors but one – that the accused and public are likely tohave more confidence in it.
• Many people have faith in the verdict of an independent jury – in the first six months of the 2020 Covid-19 lockdown, only two applications were made for judge-only trials, with all other accusedpersons choosing to have their trials delayed.

          Arguments against theresponsibilities of the juryachieving the principles of justice include:

• Jurors must perform a complex task, but without experience in the law, in assessing evidence, or in court procedure.
• Jurors must make decisions based on a narrow and incomplete version of the case. The rules of evidence and procedure, and the choices made by the parties, remove a great deal of potentially relevant information from the trial.
• Jury verdicts are difficult to challenge on appeal because no reasons are given. This limits the accountability of the jury.
• Jurors themselves have given concerning accounts of jury duty, where the process of reaching the verdict did not seem to be based on the law and an objective assessment of the evidence.
• Many jurors do not understand the rule against performing outside research. In 2013 a mistrial was declared in the murder trial of Steve Constantinou after a juror slept through the judge’s directions on not conducting any outside research.
• Jurors may not be able to act as peers of the accused or as representatives of a cross-section of society because of the range of people disqualified, ineligible or excused, and because the parties can challenge the empanelment of three jurors each, without giving the court any reasons.

2. The task word ‘evaluate’ require students to consider both sides of something, as well as express an opinion judging the relative strengths of the arguments. For example, a student might argue, based on evidence when referring to the arguments for and against one responsibilityof the jury, that it does achieve the principles of justice. Responses will vary according to the arguments selected.