hang the hung jury

One of my favourite old movies was Twelve Angry men. It starred, from memory, actors like Henry Fonda and Lee J. Cobb. It was all about the workings inside a jury room. Some jurors thought the defendant instantly guilty. One juror just wanted to get over and done with because he didn’t want to miss a baseball game.

 But one juror thought the young man, accused of murder, was innocent. And eventually he turned all the others around. And he was right.

I thought about that movie today because a fresh debate in the NSW Government about unanimous verdicts or majority verdicts. I have talked about this before. It has been prompted by the hung jury in the murder trial of Bruce Burrell. He allegedly kidnapped and murdered Kerry Whelan, the wife of his ex-employer. Her body was never found.

The Burrell jury began hearing evidence back in August. They retired to consider their verdict last month and spent thirteen days doing just that before admitting they could not reach a unanimous verdict.

Three times they returned to the court to ask the judge questions about the evidence.

That hung jury has brought back the debate about majority verdicts. Which I support. I remember the disgraceful Joh Bjelke Petersen corruption case. That was a hung jury 11-1. Joh was set free and never tried again – even though he had received paper bags full of cash across his desk as Premier of Queensland. It turned out that the one juror who held out was actually the president – or former president – of the Young Nationals.

There was a famous or infamous case in Alice Springs about eight years ago with a deadlocked jury. One frustrated juror tried to walk out of the jury room. Another, equally frustrated juror, punched him and dragged him back inside. They got a unanimous verdict. Whether that is justice or not is debatable.

The New South Wales Government has promised to look at majority verdicts since the Burrell case – in conjunction with the New South Wales Law Reform Commission. And shadow Attorney General, Andrew Tink,  has introduced a bill allowing veredicts to be made with an 11-1 majority.

I’d go along with that. Even 10-2. Anything less – like 8-4 – would be dangerous. Just think it through: The United States Supreme Court, probably the most powerful court in the world, often has majority and minority decisions that affect the lives of 300 million people. Sometimes the nine-member court splits 5-4.

The idea of majority jury opinions is something that, I believe the Victorian Government should bring in. As long as majority is – as I said – 11-1 or 10-2.

Thursday, November 3, 2005

©Copyright Derryn Hinch 2005