..


The Conversation

  • Written by John Eldridge, Lecturer, Sydney Law School, University of Sydney
Trial by judge alone may not be the answer to giving high-profile defendants a fair hearing

In April 2013, Adrian Bayley pleaded guilty to Jill Meagher’s murder. As the case was the subject of heavy media coverage, there would have been few Australians who were not well aware of it.

It’s worth pondering, then, what might have happened had – as was possible – Bayley pleaded not guilty. Would it have been possible to empanel a jury that could bring a fair mind to the assessment of Bayley’s guilt? If not, what ought to have been done?

Bayley’s case is hardly unique. Delivering a High Court judgment in 2012 on the appeal of Queensland surgeon Jayant Patel (dubbed “Dr Death”) against manslaughter convictions, justice Dyson Heydon observed:

It is difficult to imagine there could be many speakers of English living in Australia, even parts of Australia outside Queensland, in the years before the trial who had not been exposed to the massively unfavourable publicity that [Patel] received during these events. It was inflammatory, derisive and bitter.

Though the likes of Bayley and Patel are unlikely to attract sympathy, we should nonetheless give serious thought to the challenges involved in ensuring such defendants are able to be tried fairly.

The law insists any accused is entitled to test the charges against them before an impartial tribunal. This is one of the core values of our system of justice; it ought to be jealously protected.

The problems high-profile defendants pose are hardly new. But they are more pressing today than ever.

Prejudice in the modern courtroom

In an age of search engines and social media, the likelihood of prospective jurors being exposed to prejudicial publicity in the lead-up to a trial has never been greater.

Modern conditions have also cast doubt on the efficacy of traditional mechanisms – such as a change of trial venue, or the rules relating to sub judice contempt – for controlling such publicity and managing its impact.

There is also strong evidence that suggests such publicity can have a meaningful effect. A 1999 meta-analysis of 44 empirical tests, involving a total of 5,755 subjects, concluded that:

… the data support the hypothesis that negative pretrial publicity significantly affects jurors’ decisions about the culpability of the defendant.

Read more: Why the public isn't allowed to know specifics about the George Pell case

Faced with these difficulties, some have suggested that notorious defendants ought to, in some cases, be tried by judge alone, rather than before a jury. This course of action is not available in all parts of Australia. Where such trials are available, the conditions under which they are permitted vary.

There are two primary models used, with some jurisdictions blending elements of the two. The first allows trial by judge alone if the accused requests it. The second utilises an “interests of justice” test and allows trial by judge alone at the judge’s discretion.

Judicial prejudice warrants further research

The appeal of a trial by judge alone in such cases is founded upon the great confidence the law has in judges’ capabilities.

This conviction is deeply held. Yet when I and two other researchers examined whether this belief was empirically supported, a complex picture emerged.

In short, there is little clear empirical evidence to suggest judges are significantly more capable than jurors of putting prejudicial information to one side in decision-making. Despite having examined several empirical studies conducted over a considerable span of years, we were unable to identify a firm foundation for the overwhelming confidence in judges’ superior capabilities.

Two qualifications must immediately be made.

First, this conclusion does not call into question the integrity, commitment or diligence of either judges or jurors. To say both judges and jurors may similarly struggle with the impact of prejudicial publicity is not to say that trials of notorious defendants, whether conducted before a jury or by judge alone, are anything less than fair.

Second, it must be stressed there remains a real need for further research on this subject. The main conclusion we arrived at is that the assumptions that underlie the widespread faith in trial by judge alone merit continued investigation.

It is possible that further research may yield more decisive and satisfying answers than are currently available. If it leads to the conclusion the judiciary is more capable than jurors of ignoring prejudicial publicity, this may act as an impetus for the expansion of the availability of trial by judge alone.

Whatever the outcome of further investigation, we cannot afford any delay in carrying it out. The continuing growth and reach of social media means the problem of prolific, prejudicial online publicity is not one that will disappear with time. It is likely to become more – not less – crucial to find ways to moderate the effects of prejudicial publicity.

Authors: John Eldridge, Lecturer, Sydney Law School, University of Sydney

Read more http://theconversation.com/trial-by-judge-alone-may-not-be-the-answer-to-giving-high-profile-defendants-a-fair-hearing-94103

Politics

Scott Morrison - Breaking Ground on Western Sydney Airport

Construction on Western Sydney Airport will begin today – boosting jobs, creating much-needed infrastructure and strengthening the economy.   Prime Minister Scott Morrison said the Western Sydney ...

Scott Morrison - More choice for Australian families

Australian families will have choice and equity in education as the Morrison Government guarantees funding to the non-government school sector. The Australian Government has accepted all the recom...

Dutton - Labor/Green witch-hunt comes up empty

Despite Labor’s best efforts in hyping up the so-called “au pair” Senate inquiry, the farcical and shambolic witch-hunt has come up with nothing except findings that mirror the Labor Party’s initial...

Business News

Achieving the Perfect Balance of SEO and Creative Content is just a Few Steps Away

If you want an appropriate description of today’s online marketing world, in the search engine optimization kingdom, it may somewhat fit along the lines -- content is the king. Basically, it means tha...

Get Your Hands on The Perfect Shipping Container Today

A shipping container is such a blessing in disguise! It comes in handy for both temporary as well as long term storage, or say mobile offices, or even as temporary building options. They are extensive...

Is a flexible workforce the way of the future?

In short, “Yes,” says Joint Managing Director of Citrus Group, Paul Smith. By nature, working in a contact centre “isn’t the easiest job in the world,” says Paul. Allowing staff to work flexible hou...

Travel

Holiday Hacks: How to beat the travel companies at their own game

HACK YOUR WAY TO A CHEAPER HOLIDAY How to beat the travel companies at their own game and save money during the next school holidays   19 September 2018: As any parent who’s tried to book a holid...

Experience European Glamour with Ecruising

In May 2019, Ecruising is inviting travellers on an exciting itinerary that includes not one, but two, quintessential French Riviera events – the high-octane Monaco Grand Prix and the iconic Canne...

Factors to Consider When Buying a Campervan

You’ve been waiting to buy a Winnebago campervan and now it’s your chance. You’ve saved up and you’re ready to start living the road trip lifestyle. You’re in for a great time and adventure. Of cour...

You might also like