April 8, 2020 — 4.24pm

Malcolm Knox Journalist, author and columnist for The Sydney Morning Herald.

Whenever the criminal justice system is able to resume empanelling new juries, the High Court has given potential jurors a new reason for being excused from their duty: that they are wasting their time.

Cardinal George Pell is released from Barwon Prison on Tuesday after the High Court quashed his conviction.CREDIT:JASON SOUTH

For the best part of 800 years, juries have had a single function in criminal trials that higher courts could not meddle in. The jury was the finder of fact. In Australian law, this began to change in the 1994 case of M v The Queen, when the High Court said an appeal court could ask "whether it thinks that upon the whole of the evidence it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty". Victoria’s Criminal Procedure Act gave statutory back-up to this evolution of the courts’ role in 2009.

In the trial in which George Pell was found guilty, only 12 people saw and heard the 50-plus witnesses questioned, and only those 12 people were qualified to say whether or not Pell committed crimes. All of those 12 decided, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he did. And yet their months of service, and their first-hand experience, has been overturned by the High Court, not for reasons of law, but because the seven justices would have come to a different conclusion. Those jurors are entitled to ask what, then, was the point of the original trial?

For centuries since the Magna Carta, appeal courts used not to judge facts. They judged judges, ruling on legal errors. Did the trial judge allow the jury to hear ineligible witnesses? Did the trial judge misdirect the jury? These are the matters for a higher court to rule on as a tribunal of law, not fact. Appeal courts have never been designed to hear cases again and pretend to be jurors themselves.

 

Since the ‘M’ case, there has evolved a mechanism for higher courts to overturn "unsafe", or egregiously misguided, jury verdicts, and the key question was whether the Pell case should be considered one of them. Even the High Court’s language in its Pell judgment can be read ambiguously: it accepted "the assumption that the jury assessed [the complainant's] evidence as thoroughly credible and reliable" and made "full allowance for the advantages enjoyed by the jury" in actually hearing the witnesses, yet it still concluded that the jury did not make a "rational" verdict.

The High Court’s 129-paragraph decision makes scant reference to case and statute law. Instead it is filled with the facts that emerged in the Pell trial. How have appeal courts come to set themselves up as quasi-juries? As Melbourne Law School Professor Jeremy Gans has written, by viewing videotape of trial evidence, higher courts have stealthily turned themselves into tribunals of fact. The Victorian Court of Appeal did that in the Pell case, which enabled the High Court, as reviewer of the Court of Appeal, to interpose itself in the same way.

It’s a neat fiction: "We’re not re-trying the case, we’re only assessing another court’s viewing of videotape of parts of the case." However, like videotape itself, the version becomes distorted and more distanced from the original delivery in each new generation. It is, perhaps illogically, the final court (which didn’t view the videotape but only read transcripts and heard argument from lawyers who were not at the Pell trial) which has the power to impose its interpretation upon the tribunal that saw the witnesses in the flesh or by live video-link.

A misconception of the Pell case was that it was one man’s word against another’s. The complainant, under oath and severe cross-examination, provided his version. Pell availed himself of his so-called "right" to silence. Instead, Pell’s case was advanced by church witnesses who speculated on the logistical difficulty of committing the sexual abuse in the circumstances that had been alleged. Pell’s refusal to testify, for his own reasons, is not uncommon and cannot be held against him, but if he did turn his trial into one man’s word against another’s, and his case was so strong, he might never have spent one day in jail.

Instead, the jury appears to have decided what many juries decide: the fact that committing this crime would have been risky and stupid did not mean Pell didn’t do it. As anyone in the lower courts knows, accused people are often found guilty of doing risky and stupid things.

There is one foreseeable consequence of this verdict. Appeal courts are going to be crammed. If higher courts can effectively retry cases and second-guess juries, if a legitimate ground for appeal is simply that the jury was "not rational" – not that a jury has made a catastrophic error, but simply that it was wrong – the system can get set for an avalanche of appeals.

Some think the jury system is outdated, and criminal trials should be heard by judges alone. But trial judges are equally exposed by the powers the higher courts have arrogated to themselves in Pell’s and previous cases. When a prospective juror says, "I refuse to serve because I may be wasting my time", trial judges may sympathise, because they will be in the same boat. When every fact they find can be second-guessed and retried by a higher panel of would-be jurors in legal robes – people who, by the way, have never sat on a jury – our 800-year-old "black box of justice" might as well ask if it has any purpose at all.

 

Much focus, since Pell has been freed, has fallen on the victims of abuse in the Catholic Church committed by those other than Pell. There is another group of mistreated people here: the 12 who actually heard the evidence. Juries have no lobby group, no institutional backing, no voice. Amid other indignities the legal system visits on jurors, it compels them to suffer this insult in silence. But they are us. We citizens are potential jurors, and our response to future requests for our time might be: If you won’t trust us, why should we trust you?

Malcolm Knox is the author of Secrets of the Jury Room: Inside the Black Box of Criminal
Justice in Australia, an account of his experiences on a criminal trial jury and an inquiry into the history of the jury system.

 

 

Journalist, author and columnist for The Sydney Morning Herald.

You need to be a member of 1Eyed Eel to add comments!

Join 1Eyed Eel

Votes: 0
Email me when people reply –

Replies

  • Whoever wrote this tripe is an idiot

  • He makes a valid case. 

  • I can't understand the hyperventillation going on about this case being overturned. That is our judicial system, and is nothing new. I am comfortable that we have a system that can look in depth into a case from multiple view points to ensure that our liberty remains and that people are innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Maybe Pell is guilty, but there is just not enough evidence to convict him, as the High Court has stated. Jurors won't always see this as the High Court judges will.

    • Happy Easter Everybody 

      • This reply was deleted.
        • He always got everything which is the biggest.but that's okay he also is a big softy at heart

  • I'm no expert when it comes to  law but the fact but I would take the opinion of 7 judges over a jury that would of been made up of some of the bjggest dopes in society . 

     

     

    One of the boys who was meant to be involved in this alleged incident told his own mother before he died that the incident never happened yet , it was a bit if a joke that Pell was found guilty in the first place considering the lack of evidence . 

This reply was deleted.

Latest comments

Poppa replied to Blue Eel's discussion Have we finally got what we need?
"Don't be so nice Bluey, Merkins is a fcukwit.....
Great blog btw, you have definetly been drinking that Unicorn juice I sent you. Some would say overdosed LOL.
How is your health, I was concerned the other day when you said you had been in hospital…"
2 minutes ago
HH - Love You Iongi Time! replied to Mr 'BringBackFitzy' Analyst's discussion Did D Brown do what's best for himself or parra?
"Plural?
 "
7 minutes ago
Parramanaic replied to Mr 'BringBackFitzy' Analyst's discussion Did D Brown do what's best for himself or parra?
"Farking hell, mate,  you're a whinger"
13 minutes ago
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER replied to Mr 'BringBackFitzy' Analyst's discussion Did D Brown do what's best for himself or parra?
"Himself "
17 minutes ago
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER replied to EA's discussion EA & Sonic Boom Rookie Report - Jersey Flegg
"Well done EA great work i like to know bit about our juniors because i dont see them play each week"
19 minutes ago
Bob mertens replied to Mr 'BringBackFitzy' Analyst's discussion Did D Brown do what's best for himself or parra?
"What a rubbish blog this has killed my brain cells. Blog of the year! "
19 minutes ago
Bob mertens replied to Mr 'BringBackFitzy' Analyst's discussion Did D Brown do what's best for himself or parra?
"How do you know he chose against that idea? Think this is wrong information the club made the decision. "
21 minutes ago
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER replied to Blue Eel's discussion Have we finally got what we need?
"Ho sorry Blue Eel i for got to say it was a great Blog
Sorry mate well done 
Keep up the work "
27 minutes ago
Priceforever replied to Blue Eel's discussion Have we finally got what we need?
"I totally agree with what you say.. You can't take our spot on the table and blame Ryles. He in less than 12 months has installed culture back to the eels. When he took over we had at least a half dozen overpaid players on our top 30 roster. He has…"
32 minutes ago
KingGutho replied to EA's discussion EA & Sonic Boom Rookie Report - Jersey Flegg
"@ EA this is has to be the blog of the year. Unbelievable write up.
Out of all the players, who are your top 3 ?
 
I've seen a few players play.
what do you think of Lincoln Fletcher? I've seen him play, I thought he looks very good. Could be Moses…"
43 minutes ago
Mick aka Big Chris replied to Blue Eel's discussion Have we finally got what we need?
"Why not?"
49 minutes ago
Muttman replied to Mr 'BringBackFitzy' Analyst's discussion Did D Brown do what's best for himself or parra?
"Himself"
49 minutes ago
Parramatta Tragic replied to Poppa's discussion Poppa's Corner: A Reality Check, But Not Blaming Anyone
"I would be throwing the kitchen sink at DCE for the next 2 years. He is exactly what we need at 5/8 or half depending on whether he or Moses makes the better 6. It would be like bringing John Peard in to the lead the backline and drive the forwards.…"
1 hour ago
Tad replied to Muttman's discussion The farce needs to end!
"Take a moment and relect rather than have that beer
https://youtu.be/zsnbnkBBP84?si=zrCL1vBrivA-zlLM"
1 hour ago
Coryn Hughes replied to Blue Eel's discussion Have we finally got what we need?
"I think this is the best and well articulated thread I've read on this forum this year BE well done mate.
Particularly liked the description of Ryley Smith the spark plug that fires the motor and I really like the somethings missing paragraph…"
2 hours ago
Coryn Hughes replied to Poppa's discussion Poppa's Corner: A Reality Check, But Not Blaming Anyone
"Terrible isn't it you missed the answer to your own question staring at you right in the face as for footy iq look in the mirror before commenting about what mine is."
3 hours ago
More…

NSW Origin Squad 2025

WESTPAC NSW BLUES SQUADAmpol State of Origin, Game OneSuncorp Stadium, Brisbane Wednesday 28 May1. Dylan Edwards (Penrith Panthers)2. Brian To’o (Penrith Panthers)3. Stephen Crichton (Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs)4. Latrell Mitchell (South Sydney…

Read more…
0 Replies
Views: 276

 

Have we finally got what we need?

As our season unofficially closed this weekend and attentions get turned to next season, I was struck by the coaching maturity of Jason Ryles. Here is a man, a rookie coach, completely reinventing our Eels. Not just changing a couple of players here…

Read more…
21 Replies · Reply by Poppa 2 minutes ago
Views: 720

<script src="https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>
<!-- Sidebar -->
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<script>// <![CDATA[
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
// ]]></script>