Evaluate the effectiveness of the jury system in achieving justice in the criminal justice system.

Juries play an integral role in the adversarial system as they determine the guilt or innocence of an
accused. The jury are 12 citizens randomly selected from the electoral role and base their decision
on the court hearing. While only used in the district and supreme courts for indictable offences,
juries are seen as necessary for a fair trial as they protect against corruption and bias with their role
and powers outlined in the Jury Act 1977 (NSW). While juries are an important and necessary aspect
of the criminal justice system, there are significant inefficiencies which reduce their effectiveness in
achieving justice for all involved. Issues with jurys effectiveness include jury selection, standard of
proof, jurors knowledge and the effective use of resources.
Juries are supposed to be a cross section of the community and reach a verdict based on beyond
reasonable doubt, however this isnt always true. While juries are selected randomly from the
electoral role, jurors can still be removed with challenges for cause or peremptory challenges. This
effects the cross section of the community that is represented, and the final chosen jurors may not
reflect the majority of the communitys values. Despite this the jury remains as a representation of
the community and helps achieve justice for society. Another issue with juries achieving justice is
that they at times may not be able to reach a verdict. This prior to 2006 would have resulted in a
hung jury but based on the Jury Amendment (Verdicts) Act 2006 verdicts can be made based on the
majority. Majority verdicts are an issue in achieving justice as the guilt or innocence of the accused
has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. If there is someone unsure on the jury, then the
guilt or innocence has not been proven to the standard of proof. A report by the NSW Law Reform
Commission also found that by allowing majority verdicts the courts time would only be saved by
1.1%. Majority verdicts not only go against beyond reasonable doubt but do not save the court a
substantial amount of time. A case where a majority verdict was used is in the Keli Lane Case. During
the trial of this case the jury was presented with circumstantial evidence and were unable to make a
unanimous verdict. Although Keli Lane was found guilty her guilt was not proven beyond reasonable
doubt. Not meeting the standard of proof could result in a wrongful conviction and an unjust trial.
While juries help provide justice for society there are issues that can affect a fair trial.
As jurors are ordinary citizens they can have little understanding of the legal system and may not
hear cases objectively. A jury reaches their verdict based on all evidence presented during the trial,
but jurors are sometimes unable to understand the forensic evidence they are presented with. This
can be seen in the Lindy Chamberlin case where jury members did not understand some of the
evidence presented in court which ended in an unjust verdict. This shows how the lack of
understanding in a jury can affect the achievement of justice. Although this lack of understanding is
an issue, the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR) found that a majority of juries
have little or no problem understanding judicial instructions or the summing up of evidence. While
juries have been unable to understand evidence in the past, it is not a common issue affecting juries.
Juries at times have also not always followed judicial instructions. In R v Wood (2009) some
members of the jury were going against the judges instructions in a plan to visit the crime scene
based on one jurors strong personal belief of the defendants guilt, which resulted in a retrial with a
new jury. This demonstrates how jurors come into the court with bias and do not hear cases as
objectively as a judge would. Figures from BOCSAR show that the defendant was more likely to
acquitted if heard by a judge. According to Mark Findely, a criminal justice professor, this happens
because judges are less likely to be guided by emotion. Jurors lack of understanding and existing bias
is an issue in achieving justice, although it is not a common problem.