Attorney Expresses Worries Regarding the Effects of Majority Verdict Laws on Justice System Integrity
The Australian Capital Territory Government’s decision to allow majority verdicts could result in a higher number of appeals, according to Tony Nikolic’s warning.
A Sydney criminal lawyer, Tony Nikolic of Ashley, Francina, Leonard & Associates (AFL Solicitors), has raised concerns about the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) government’s move to permit majority verdicts. Majority verdicts, where guilt can be established even if one juror dissents, “raises valid concerns about the potential implications for the justice system,” Nikolic stated in an exclusive interview with The Epoch Times.
Nikolic emphasized the importance of unanimous agreement among jurors as a foundational principle essential for thorough deliberation and protection against biases or errors. He described a unanimous verdict as a “time-honoured standard” and warned that deviating from it could set a precedent leading to a decline in the judicial process. This shift may prioritize expediency over a meticulous examination of evidence, jeopardizing the integrity of verdicts and the rights of defendants.
Judge-Alone Trials Also Pose a Risk
Nikolic also expressed concerns about the introduction of judge-alone trials as an alternative to jury trials. While judge-alone trials may offer efficiency benefits in certain cases, they introduce complexity and potential risks, such as judicial bias or errors. Nikolic highlighted the risk that judge-alone trials could be influenced by political alignment or individual subjectivity, posing a significant threat to the impartiality and objectivity of the legal process.
Nikolic cautioned that these changes could lead to a higher number of lengthy appeals, resulting in escalating legal costs for taxpayers and litigants. He emphasized the importance of carefully evaluating trade-offs between efficiency and the preservation of legal principles as the legal landscape in the ACT evolves.
The discrepancy in the rights granted to accused individuals across various Australian jurisdictions was also highlighted by Nikolic. He pointed out the diverse protocols in different states and territories, ranging from allowing judge-alone trials with mutual consent and public interest in Western Australia to prohibiting the waiver of jury trials in Tasmania.
Andrew Tiedt, a director at J. Sutton, cited statistics from the NSW District Court in 2022, showing a high percentage of trials where the jury reached a verdict. Views on majority verdicts vary, with some considering unanimous verdicts essential for preventing wrongful convictions, while others argue that majority verdicts often result in acquittals rather than convictions.
Retrials ‘No Good For Anyone’: Former Prosecutor
Former prosecutor and ACT Leader of the Opposition Bill Stefaniak praised the change allowing majority verdicts, citing situations where one dissenting juror led to retrials, which he considered detrimental to all parties involved.
Stefaniak supported the idea of a judge being able to confirm a verdict if the majority of the jury agreed after a reasonable period of deliberation, to avoid prolonged legal battles.
Reducing Deliberation Time Has ‘Grave Consequences’: Law Society
Meanwhile, NSW recently passed the Jury Amendment Act, reducing the minimum deliberation time for a jury to reach a majority verdict from eight to four hours. The NSW Law Society criticized this change, describing it as eroding the importance of the jury’s role in the justice system.
Society President Brett McGrath emphasized the significance of jury trials, noting the high stakes for both defendants and the state. He expressed concern that reducing the minimum deliberation time to four hours could lead to rushed verdicts in cases involving individuals’ liberty, undermining the right to a fair trial by jury.
The Law Society’s submission to the Legislative Council’s Inquiry highlighted the grave consequences that could arise from hasty jury verdicts and argued for maintaining the eight-hour minimum deliberation time to ensure thorough consideration of complex evidence and unanimous decisions.
