Australian Capital Removes the Need for Unanimous Jury Decisions in Criminal Trials

The ACT has made it an offence for jurors to do their own research, and has also allowed for 11:1 findings of guilt.

Bruce Lehrmann arrives at the Federal Court of Australia in Sydney, on Feb. 13, 2024. AAP Image/Bianca De Marchi

The Australian Capital Territory (ACT) government has passed two significant changes to its jury laws: accepting majority decisions of 11:1 in criminal trials, and criminalising jurors’ independent search for trial information, such as through online queries.

The changes come in the fallout of the Bruce Lehrmann trial, which was abandoned after it was found one juror conducted their own independent research.

ACT Attorney‑General Shane Rattenbury said the decision to accept majority verdicts would help to prevent hung juries and the consequent need for retrials.

“In a diverse community people may not always agree,” he said.

“This not only causes delays and increased costs, but also adds emotional strain for victims, accused people, and others involved in the proceedings.

“The community expects both an efficient and a fair justice system. These reforms will help ... give the community confidence in our jury system.”

The change outlawing independent research is in response to the abandoned prosecution of Bruce Lehrmann for the alleged rape of Brittany Higgins, which ended in a mistrial in 2022 after a juror brought a research paper into the jury room.

No findings were recorded against Mr. Lehrmann, who has maintained his innocence.

Jail For Up to Two Years For Misconduct

The new law means jurors who do their own research during a trial will face jail for up to two years.

“If a juror relies on their own information, it undermines the defendant’s right to a fair trial. This is particularly relevant in situations where an innocent person could be found guilty of an offence due to a juror relying on information found in that juror’s own unauthorised inquiry,” Mr. Rattenbury said.

In response to a recommendation made by the board of inquiry into Mr. Lehrmann’s prosecution, the Attorney-General introduced a second amendment bill. This bill requires prosecutors to disclose all the available evidence, and sets out when they must do so.

It also ensures that a person can be heard by the court when there is a request to use confidential material.

Currently, complainants in family violence and sexual assault matters do not have the explicit right to speak in court during such requests.

ACT Law Society Supports Changes

Chair of the ACT Law Society criminal law committee, Michael Kukulies-Smith, supports these changes.

While there may already be provisions to penalise juror misconduct, he noted that specifying such offenses communicates the seriousness of non-compliance to jurors.

“The society acknowledges that having a specific juror misconduct offence clearly communicates to jurors of their obligations,” he told the ABC.

However, he maintained that unanimous verdicts remained the best way to ensure justice had been served.

“It remains important that unanimous verdicts remain the focus of our trial processes and in many cases, it will be necessary that more than six hours of deliberations occur before it would be appropriate for a majority verdict to be accepted,” he said.

The reforms bring the ACT into line with the rest of Australia, which already allows for majority verdicts in trials and makes juror misconduct an offence.