Congratulations are in order to the Springboks [the South African rugby team] on winning their fourth Rugby World Cup, against New Zealand in an epic and dour struggle. Just the tonic that troubled country needs.

I was going to continue my series on the Middle East, but thought you may well like a break from that, so I will continue with my suggestions for peace in a later article. (I suggest readers read The Australian, which has an excellent daily coverage of that tragic conflict.)

This week, I would like to congratulate the ACT Government for doing something right for a change.

We are one of the few jurisdictions in the country that still insist on having a unanimous jury verdict before a person can be convicted or acquitted when tried for a serious criminal offence. 

The ACT has now introduced legislation allowing a judge, after a jury has spent six hours deliberating without coming to a verdict, to allow a majority verdict of 11 out of the 12 jurors to decide the case. 

I did a few jury trials as a prosecutor, and they are certainly a great experience. It’s the ultimate in our criminal justice system. As someone running a jury trial, you are not supposed to know what happens in the jury room, but invariably something leaks out. (Well, it used to in my day.)

I have seen, on rare occasions, situations where there seems to be one stubborn juror who hangs out and refuses to change their mind despite the often overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Currently, that will mean a retrial, which is not good for anyone. If the judge can say, after a reasonable period (and six hours is, in my view, reasonable): “Well, Mr/Ms Foreman of the Jury, do 11 of you agree on a verdict?”, and if the foreman answers: “Yes, Your Honour, 11 of us do,” Bingo! you can now have a verdict. 

Other states have majority verdicts, and in some states, it’s only 10 out of the 12 jury members.

Jury trials are also a bit of a science, and I developed a theory in picking a jury. As a prosecutor, and I admit to bias here, I found tradies make excellent jurors as they tend to be very practical people who have a lot of common sense. Academics and public servants maybe less so, although they can be good for the defence in some instances. Also, if you are defence counsel, there is usually no need for the defendant to be in a suit, just neatly dressed, clean and tidy.

However, you probably need to take some of the above with a grain of salt. Nearly everyone I have seen on jury service has been very conscientious, regardless of their backgrounds, and mindful of the fact that it is a privilege very few countries offer: citizens sitting in judgment to determine the guilt or otherwise of their fellow citizens. In my experience, nearly all jurors were mindful of that privilege, and diligently applied themselves to the onerous but vital task of being the sole finder of facts in the case before them.

A good move by the ACT Government.