Jury articles'New material' sees jury discharged in Lin family murder trialDate June 10, 2014 Paul Bibby Court Reporter

The jury in the trial of the alleged Lin family murderer has been discharged following the emergence of new evidence that may ''change the shape and content'' of the case.Lian Bin ''Robert'' Xie, 50, is accused of creeping into the North Epping home of his brother-in-law, Min ''Norman'' Lin, in the early hours of July 18, 2009, and murdering him and four members of his family. This included Min Lin's sons Terry, 9, and Henry, 12, his wife Lily Lin and his sister-in-law Irene Lin.Mr Xie has been on trial in the NSW Supreme Court over the murders for the past month.But on Tuesday Justice Peter Johnson discharged the jury. He said ''further material'' had been provided to the Crown late last month and given to the defence just over a week ago. Mr Xie's defence then applied for the jury to be discharged, Justice Johnson said - an application the Crown did not oppose.The exact nature of the new material cannot be disclosed. However, Justice Johnson said it ''may make a substantial difference to the trial of the accused. It may change the shape and content of the trial in significant ways.''His honour explained to the jury that a delay in the trial for much of the past week was the result of the parties engaging in legal argument in relation to the new material.''I am conscious that there will be a sense of frustration on your part that you cannot continue and complete that task. However, I am entirely satisfied that the only appropriate course to take in the proper exercise of the administration of justice is to discharge you as the jury.''This will mean that the trial will start again and proceed before a different jury at a later date.''I would like to express the gratitude of the court and the community for your service in this trial and the careful attention you have obviously given to the evidence.''Mr Xie bowed to the jury as they left the courtroom, and the jury's foreman waved to the court.The matter will return to court on Thursday, with a new jury trial expected to take place next month.http://www.theage.com.au/nsw/new-material-sees-jury-discharged-in-lin-family-murder-trial-20140610-39uk2.html (accessed 9/9/14)

Terror plotters appeal against 'unreasonable' juryDate August 19, 2013 Paul Bibby

Five Sydney men each sentenced to more than two decades in jail for plotting a series of terrorist acts will claim in their appeal that the jury which convicted them should have been discharged following a security scare during the trial.

1

Khaled Cheikho, Moustafa Cheikho, Mohamed Ali Elomar, Abdul Rakib Hasan and Mohammed Omar Jamal, aged between 25 and 44, were arrested in Sydney in 2005 as part of Australia's largest ever terror raids.They were convicted of conspiring to commit a terrorist act or acts after a 10-month trial which heard they had obtained instructions on how to make pipe bombs capable of causing large-scale death and destruction and literature that glorified the actions of al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden.In sentencing the men to between 23 and 28 years' prison Justice Anthony Whealy said the group was motivated by "intolerant, inflexible religious conviction" and the prospects of rehabilitation were poor.But the men are appealing their convictions and sentences in the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal, filing dozens of grounds for the argument that the convictions were a miscarriage of justice.At a short hearing on Monday characterised by tight courtroom security, barrister Tim Game, representing Hasan, said he would argue that there had been an "unreasonable verdict"."The concatenation of events doesn't amount to a circumstantial case," one of the other barristers, Greg James, QC, said.Sources close to the appeal say that a key element of the argument relates to a security scare which took place during the 2009 trial in which the jury became concerned that relatives of the alleged terror plotters were taking down their number plates in the car park.The jury sent a note to the judge expressing the concern that they were being threatened by or were at risk from the unknown female relatives.Barristers for the five men will argue that this perception of a threat prejudiced the jury towards their clients, and that the jury should have been discharged and a new trial ordered at that point.The lawyers will also argue that a series of graphic terrorist videos found in the possession of the men, including one showing a beheading, should not have been shown to the jury because there was no evidence that they actually intended to carry out such barbaric acts, and at least one of the men had never seen the video himself.They will argue that this evidence was prejudicial and had "no probative value".Prosecutors reject all grounds of appeal. It is understood they will argue that even if errors were made during the course of the trial these were not serious enough to impede the administration of justice.The appeal hearing was cut short on Monday, with Chief Justice Tom Bathurst adjourning the matter suddenly and then indicating it would have to be postponed until Tuesday morning.One of the three-judge appeal panel, Justice Margaret Beazley, will take no further part in the appeal hearing.

http://www.theage.com.au/nsw/terror-plotters-appeal-against-unreasonable-jury-20130819-2s68g.html (accessed 9/9/14)

Jury sleuths should not face courtDate January 11, 2013 Jacqueline Horan

2

Making trial research a crime will not stop jurors from playing detective.Yet another Victorian juror caused a mistrial last month because he looked up the definition of ''beyond reasonable doubt'' on the internet. Looking up definitions on the internet is common sense and to some people instinctive and yet, if a juror does this they can be charged with a criminal offence and fined in excess of $16,000 for playing detective.An increasing number of trials are aborted because of jurors playing detective. In the US, 21 trials were overturned in 2010 because of such (mis)behaviour. In a New Zealand survey, jurors admitted to doing their own research in more than 10 per cent of the trials.The researchers observed that the jurors ''did not seem to appreciate the importance, or did not understand the logic, of restricting themselves to the information presented by the parties and the judge''.The innocent behaviour of a West Australian juror who asked the jury keeper to copy internet maps for his colleagues, highlights how logical such behaviour is to jurors. This juror did not regard obtaining maps from the internet as forbidden research. The maps were relevant because there was conflicting evidence about where the victim had been assaulted. The maps showed the alternative crime scene, which the map provided by the prosecution did not.In a knee-jerk response to the rise of the detective juror, the Victorian government made it a criminal offence for jurors to do research. No study of the issue was conducted before this law was made.There are three reasons why this law is wrong. First, the law has not stopped detective jurors. In the largest Victorian terrorism trial the jurors were warned five times not to do their own research. Wikipedia-type internet printouts were found in the jury room.Later in that trial, the jurors were explicitly told that doing their own research was a crime. Despite this, a dictionary was found in the jury room. Even though the jury had blatantly defied the law, none of those jurors have been charged. And nor should they be. The average juror of the 21st century is well educated and capable of using a dictionary appropriately.Secondly, this law is likely to undermine the most powerful weapon we have to rein in jury sleuthing. Errors made by one juror are frequently corrected by other jurors. If a detective juror attempts to share illicit information with fellow jurors, another juror is likely to stop it and may even report it to the judge.However, fellow jurors are discouraged from reporting detective jurors if they think that the juror will be charged with a crime. In a New South Wales trial, two independent witnesses reported that a juror had contacted a journalist and some jurors were planning to privately visit the crime scene. When questioned by the judge under oath, not one of the 12 jurors ''dobbed'' on their own.Thirdly, by punishing detective jurors the law acts against the spirit of encouraging citizens to do their civic duty to the best of their ability.As one juror who conducted a private view explained: ''I only went to the park to clarify something for my own mind. I felt I had a duty to the court to be right.''Rather than punishing jurors, we should be considering why it is that jurors are doing their own research and respond to their needs. While jurors generally follow judicial instructions, the fact that they are defying ''don't search'' instructions suggests that the trial process is letting them down.

3

In a study of ''don't research'' instructions, the researchers analysed judicial instructions in 10 NSW trials. They concluded that ''no trial judge provided a completely comprehensive explanation of the personal and procedural consequences should a juror disregard their direction against investigation''.Given that jurors can be imprisoned for doing their own research, they deserve a thorough explanation of why they should resist their instinct to use the internet.Questions in the minds of the jurors should be channelled away from Google and back into the courtroom. It is far less intimidating for jurors to go home and ask a question on Google than it is to submit it to the court.Some jurors wrongly perceive that they have no right to ask questions in the trial. Few judges actively encourage juror questions. Juror questions, via the judge, should be better facilitated.Digital technology has turbocharged the detective juror, so the jury system needs to change to accommodate contemporary conditions. Providing thorough explanations and allowing jurors to ask questions are two small ways in which we can begin to rethink the jury system so that it continues to thrive.Jurors should never be threatened with criminal sanction, solely because the legal system has failed to move with the times.Jacqueline Horan is an academic at the Melbourne law school and member of the Victorian bar (academic). This article is extracted from her new book, Juries in the 21st Century.

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/society-and-culture/jury-sleuths-should-not-face-court-20130110-2cix7.html (accessed 9/9/14)

Jury discharged in fatal hit-run caseDate May 13, 2013 Adam CooperThe jury in the trial of a man charged over a fatal hit-run was discharged on Monday because a juror said he knew a supporter of the accused man.Supreme Court Justice Stephen Kaye told jurors he had no option to discharge them after one of the group had told the court's tipstaff that he recognised one of Daniel Carletti's supporters in court.Mr Carletti, 33, has pleaded not guilty to charges of culpable driving, failing to stop and failing to render assistance from an incident on January 1, 2011 in Marong, near Bendigo.A man in his 40s was critically injured in the crash and later died.Justice Kaye said while he regretted having to discharge the jury once the trial had begun, he did so to maintain the rule of law where 12 independent jurors decide the case.He commended the juror who came forward for his honesty.The trial is set to start again on Tuesday.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/jury-discharged-in-fatal-hitrun-case-20130513-2jhwc.html (accessed 9/9/14)

Deaf campaigner Gaye Lyons loses bid to serve on Queensland jury

4

Date September 1, 2015

A woman hoping to be Australia's first deaf juror has lost a legal bid in Queensland's highest court.Gaye Prudence Lyons, who can lip read but requires an Auslan interpreter to communicate, claimed she was discriminated against after being excluded from an Ipswich District Court jury in 2012.

It sparked a three-year legal battle that has been through numerous Queensland courts and tribunals, with Ms Lyons suing the state government in the Supreme Court of Appeal.

However in a verdict handed down on Friday, three appeal judges found that it was within the law for Ms Lyons to be left off the jury by a court registrar.

It comes after a similar case in Victoria, where a 34-year-old man was excluded from jury duty.Earlier this year, Ms Lyons said her campaign to serve on the jury was "to break down barriers and have equal opportunities for the deaf community".

"For so many years and for so long deaf people have had barriers and boundaries...it's a continuous fight for us to have equal opportunities," she said through an Auslan interpreter.

Judges Catherine Holmes, Robert Gotterson and Debra Mullins said Ms Lyons' scenario was problematic because it would require an unsworn interpreter to be involved in confidential jury deliberations.

They disagreed with the suggestion that the court registrar had breached the Anti-Discrimination Act."The Registrar did not exclude her because of her need for the assistance of an interpreter but because of the perceived impossibility of an interpreter, a person extraneous to the jury, being present in the jury room," Justice Holmes wrote.

During a previous hearing, another judge said it was "not appropriate" for an interpreter to be present in the jury room and voiced concerns that Ms Lyons could miss parts of conversations if she had to rely on lip reading.

Justice Holmes said the case was of "significant public interest" because of Ms Lyons' desire to perform her civic duty.

"On the present state of the legislation, it is difficult to see how jury members could discuss the case in the presence of an interpreter without breaking their oath, or, indeed, how a trial judge could properly give leave for that to occur."

Ms Lyons had the support of the Australian Centre for Disability Law during her hearing, which took place in May this year.

"People who are deaf regularly participate in jury service in the United States...most of the perceived barriers are an illusion, not a reality of what it takes for people to participate," director Phillip French said at the time.

http://www.theage.com.au/queensland/deaf-campaigner-gaye-lyons-loses-bid-to-serve-on-queensland-jury-20150831-gjbua0.html (accessed 16/9/2015)

Bree Stanford death: Hung jury in dangerous driving caseAugust 7, 2015 Paul Bibby

A jury has been unable to reach a verdict in the case of a truck driver charged with dangerous driving occasioning death after he hit a 19-year-old P-plate driver.

5

Bree Stanford, from Panania, in Sydney's south-west, died on May 1, 2014 when the Mazda 323 she was travelling in broke down on the Hawkesbury River Bridge and was struck by a truck being driven by Steven Barnett.

Following a trial in the Downing Centre District Court, the jury in the matter was unable to reach a verdict.

It was discharged by Judge Antony Townsend on Friday.

The matter will return to court on August 28.

Sydney man facing Daniel Christie one-punch murder charge to apply for judge-only trialUpdated 11 Jun 2015, 4:22pmThu 11 Jun 2015, 4:22pm

The Sydney man accused of the one-punch murder of Daniel Christie in Kings Cross will apply for a judge-only trial.

Mixed martial arts fighter and labourer Shaun McNeil is facing charges for the murder of 18-year-old Daniel Christie on New Year's Eve in 2013.

Mr McNeil allegedly knocked Mr Christie unconscious with a single blow to his head. The 18-year-old's life support was switched off 11 days later.

New South Wales Police said Mr Christie was attacked when he tried to help protect three teenagers being assaulted by Mr McNeil.

A date has been set in the NSW Supreme Court for Mr McNeil to apply for a judge-only trial.

Mr Christie's death was one of several similar incidents that led to tougher action from the NSW Government on alcohol-fuelled violence in Kings Cross and the CBD, including mandatory sentences for alcohol-related offences.

6

Court verdicts: More found innocent if no jury involvedDate November 23, 2013 Michaela Whitbourn

The man accused of murdering his fiancee by throwing her off the balcony of their Hyde Park apartment may have improved his chances of being found innocent by being tried without a jury.Simon Gittany, 40, successfully applied for a judge-alone trial for the alleged murder of Lisa Harnum.His month-long trial concluded before Justice Lucy McCallum in the Supreme Court on November 15.

A higher proportion of trials heard by a Supreme Court judge alone result in an acquittal than those heard by a jury, figures from the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research show.Between 1993 and 2011, defendants were acquitted of all charges in 55.4 per cent of judge-alone trials compared with 29 per cent of jury trials.However, more than nine times as many cases were heard by a jury than a judge alone.Mark Findlay, a professor of criminal justice at the University of Sydney, said judges were less likely to be guided by emotion.

7

''Many, if not most, cases which go to judge alone rest on facts which would be disturbing to the person in the street, or they involve an accused who may have had some previous form or some current celebrity and so a jury would not approach the case or the accused objectively or without emotion,'' he said.''On the other hand, it would be fair to assume that judges would be less impressed by disturbing facts, and would be more able to put out of their minds extraneous issues about the case or the offender.''The NSW government changed the law in 2011 so that defendants could apply to the court for a judge-alone trial, removing the requirement for the prosecutor to consent.It is now up to the court to decide if it is ''in the interests of justice'' for a defendant to be tried by a judge alone in cases where the prosecutor wants a jury.Justice McCallum ruled in October that it was in the interests of justice for Mr Gittany to be tried without a jury because he had been refused legal aid and a judge-alone trial would be two weeks shorter. This avoided the risk he would run out of funds and have to represent himself.However, Justice McCallum made clear that alleged adverse publicity did not support the case for a judge-alone trial and ''the interests of justice are not to be confused with the interests of the accused''.It was significant that a witness could have been unavailable to give evidence if the trial was delayed to give Mr Gittany time to raise more funds.Former NSW director of public prosecutions Nicholas Cowdery said the statistics were ''not surprising at all'' in light of the kind of matters that went to a judge-alone trial. He said most of the cases involved narrow and technical issues that could be resolved more quickly without a jury.''The bulk of them come down to a small area of dispute in which neither side will move which, if contested on strong grounds from the defence side, will be more likely to give rise to a reasonable doubt,'' he said.Mr Cowdery said the change to the law in 2011 could have affected the kinds of cases that went to a judge-alone trial.The year the laws were introduced, no defendants tried by a Supreme Court judge alone were acquitted of all charges, compared with 37 per cent of cases heard by a jury.Some judges specialising in criminal law have expressed doubt about the efficacy of juries in dealing with expert evidence. They are also more expensive than judge-alone trials.But Mr Cowdery said he believed ''juries perform a valuable role in connecting the community with criminal justice and in bringing into the process the community's values and standards''.

http://www.theage.com.au/nsw/court-verdicts-more-found-innocent-if-no-jury-involved-20131122-2y17l.html (accessed 9/9/14)

Probe on sex bias in jury selectionDate November 4, 2013 Jane Lee

Women are twice as likely to be excluded from criminal juries as men.In Victoria, people accused of a crime can make up to six peremptory challenges to their potential jurors based on their job, appearance and, in some cases, their name. Defendants do not have to give a reason for challenges.The Juries Commissioner's Office found that while an almost equal number of men and women were randomly summoned for jury service, in the past year, of 2405 peremptory challenges, 67 per cent were to women compared with 33 per cent to men.However, the proportion of men to women in final juries was more equal, with 44 per cent of jurors female and 56 per cent male.The Law Reform Commission is currently reviewing a range of factors in the jury selection process, including whether such challenges should continue to exist. It is also investigating their effect on jurors and on the fairness of trials.The commission's consultation paper said: ''These statistics suggest that the under-representation of women on criminal juries in Victoria is primarily the result of the peremptory challenge process. This gender imbalance is not reflected in civil trials.''

8

The commission's chairman, retired Supreme Court judge Philip Cummins, said prosecutors rarely mounted similar challenges.The judge said critics argued challenges could not predict how a juror would perform and were humiliating to jurors, while supporters believed they were important to ensuring the accused had a fair trial.''The real question is whether the selected jury is representative of the community because a jury is the voice of the community,'' Mr Cummins said. ''If it is not representative because of the challenges,that affects the validity of the system.''Criminal defence lawyers the commission interviewed said that defendants would sometimes use the challenges ''to exclude a prospective juror they are not comfortable with because they assume the person will not judge them fairly''.They conceded they often assessed potential jurors' ability to be impartial based on assumptions and stereotypes, but defended this ''on the grounds that that is the only information available and that there is sometimes an element of truth in stereotypes''.Common stereotypes of potential jurors included:■ Young women, counsellors, nurses and doctors may be more sympathetic to victims in sexual offence cases.■ White-collar professionals may be less sympathetic to a person accused of affray than tradespeople.Mr Cummins encouraged members of the public to submit their views to the commission - particularly if they had been involved in the jury selection process - by November 14.http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/probe-on-sex-bias-in-jury-selection-20131103-2wuw3.html (accessed 9/9/14)

9