How likely is it that a jury would include any ex ADF or indeed anyone who has served in a uniformed enforcement capacity?
Hard to see it get past the prosecution. But like in one the juries I have been in, how does someone who’s religious beliefs stop them finding guilt get through.
At state-level (although I think not all states), if the accused is so resolute that they will not get a fair trial by jury, they are entitled to apply for a judge-only trial, to which the prosecutor can disagree and leave it for the judge to determine. This is not so at a federal level due to s80.
The Pell case should be clarified in the respect that the High Court’s judgement had nothing to do with whether or not Pell committed the offence, and was entirely about the flawed judicial processes that occurred in the lower courts.
The HCA focused on the majority judgement of the Court of Appeal, and their failure to consider that there was a reasonable possibility that the offence did not occur, so as to give rise to a reasonable doubt that Pell committed the offence. Their additional finding that the jury should, acting rationally, have entertained reasonable doubt about Pell’s guilt has been openly controversial, but is more reflective of the prosecution’s failure to disprove the defence’s evidence in support of Pell.
So to contrast Pell with BRS in support of the idea that reputionally-destroyed people cannot possibly have a fair trial due to public opinion, is illogical - because Pell was acquitted.
0%. Maybe less.
1 Like
Pell was not acquitted at trial though. He was convicted by a jury, then the high court found that the jury had decided wrongly. If anything, the way the Pell case went down is an argument on BFs side.
2 Likes
Although with Pell, the proceedings of the various trials were not allowed to be made public until the Court of Appeal stage, to protect contamination of jurors in future proceedings.
The BRS defamation case is civil and distinct from criminal proceedings, but perceptions could still be formed from that case.
So Pell was afforded proper legal justice, despite the court of public opinion finding against him
Which is why proper jury directions are so important - the idea that publicity inherently taints the legitimacy of a criminal trial is illogical, assuming proper judicial processes are adhered to
1 Like
I am, but have not read any information produced by the trial outside of comments by posters.
Lindy Chamberlain had everything going against her from prior publicity, her religion, her reaction to her daughter’s disappearance ( too composed, didn’t cry etc)
She got convicted because of then inherent flaws in the justice system on the legal capacity to test the forensic validity of expert evidence.
if we gathered 100 random members of the public and asked them about him, i would wager a large amount of (someone else’s) money that less than 30 of them would recognise the name.
lots and lots and lots and lots of people do not watch/read/listen to the news
2 Likes
Some may argue that the Hugh Court decision was legal justice, but no-one could argue it was proper.
So do you actually believe that the Pell jury decision was not swayed at all by the massive pre-trial publicity and public opinion ?
30% is prety high recognition; I would have put it lower. You only need one out 12 on a jury.
The bigger question is why waste money and resources on a jury. Society puts the legal profession through years of traing, education and on the job experience. A judge should take the placr of a jury.
Of course, judges never let their class bias influence them, like the the deference accorded to Archer and his fragrant wife.
ADD as to Stephen Ward in the Profumo Affair …
Do you know any Judges ? I do, and a number of Magistrates.
I would hate to be leaving my life in the hands of many of them, as they have more bias than most people. And if you have ever been in a Court when a Judge gets angry, then you will know how farking scary they can be, with their God complex.
2 Likes
The effort put into the timing of trials to get the judge of choice ( or least biased) , so I’ve been told by those working in the judicial system.
Judges not always consistent on recusing themselves for potential conflicts of interest.
2 Likes
My wayward Son was appearing in court for a series of driving offences. When we rocked up, the Chief Clerk of Court called out my name, and I discovered he was an old high school friend. After a bit of banter, he asked why I was there, and I told him about my Son. So he checked his list, and changed court so my son could get a softer magistrate, who would not send him to jail (which was on the cards). Obviously we took the help and Son got off with a much lessor sentence than we thought possible, It is always who you know and how much money you have in the legal system.
3 Likes
yeah i know. it’s why i said less than 30.
You think its better to have untrained jurors ( many who dont want to be there ) to decide matters of guilt ? Jurors who have little or no legal training ? Yet we choose them over judges who have decades of education/training/experience in the law ? I’ll also add if you research controversial decisions over the years ( some which have been revisited ) it’s nearly always from juries.
Finally if you are so concerned about bias in any future BRS trial then a judge is the way to go - And if it goes to a Military Tribunal or it’s under the auspices of the Hague then there will be no jury.