Twelve angry peers or one angry judge: An analysis of judge alone trials in Australia

Jodie O'Leary

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

129 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Recently, New South Wales amended its legislation to provide for judicial discretion when determining (upon request) whether an accused will face a trial by judge alone for indictable criminal matters. This article examines the application of those provisions and comparable legislation in Queensland and Western Australia, revealing an overarching tension as to the correct legal approach. Broadly, there is a dispute over the weight that should be afforded to the accused's right to choose or whether a presumption of a jury trial exists. Such a conflict arises from the different justifications for jury trials. On the one hand, the jury trial was envisaged to protect the rights of the accused. On the other, jury trials involve the community in the administration of justice. The acceptable reasons for granting judge alone trials and the grounds for excluding matters from their ambit are applied inconsistently, depending on whether the protection theory or the community participation theory is preferred.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)154-169
Number of pages16
JournalCriminal Law Journal
Volume35
Issue number3
Publication statusPublished - 2011

Fingerprint

accused
legislation
administration of justice
community
participation

Cite this

@article{9c78ec3408f54ef0b97c7e038547a8a9,
title = "Twelve angry peers or one angry judge: An analysis of judge alone trials in Australia",
abstract = "Recently, New South Wales amended its legislation to provide for judicial discretion when determining (upon request) whether an accused will face a trial by judge alone for indictable criminal matters. This article examines the application of those provisions and comparable legislation in Queensland and Western Australia, revealing an overarching tension as to the correct legal approach. Broadly, there is a dispute over the weight that should be afforded to the accused's right to choose or whether a presumption of a jury trial exists. Such a conflict arises from the different justifications for jury trials. On the one hand, the jury trial was envisaged to protect the rights of the accused. On the other, jury trials involve the community in the administration of justice. The acceptable reasons for granting judge alone trials and the grounds for excluding matters from their ambit are applied inconsistently, depending on whether the protection theory or the community participation theory is preferred.",
author = "Jodie O'Leary",
year = "2011",
language = "English",
volume = "35",
pages = "154--169",
journal = "Criminal Law Journal",
issn = "0314-1160",
publisher = "Lawbook Co.",
number = "3",

}

Twelve angry peers or one angry judge : An analysis of judge alone trials in Australia. / O'Leary, Jodie.

In: Criminal Law Journal, Vol. 35, No. 3, 2011, p. 154-169.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Twelve angry peers or one angry judge

T2 - An analysis of judge alone trials in Australia

AU - O'Leary, Jodie

PY - 2011

Y1 - 2011

N2 - Recently, New South Wales amended its legislation to provide for judicial discretion when determining (upon request) whether an accused will face a trial by judge alone for indictable criminal matters. This article examines the application of those provisions and comparable legislation in Queensland and Western Australia, revealing an overarching tension as to the correct legal approach. Broadly, there is a dispute over the weight that should be afforded to the accused's right to choose or whether a presumption of a jury trial exists. Such a conflict arises from the different justifications for jury trials. On the one hand, the jury trial was envisaged to protect the rights of the accused. On the other, jury trials involve the community in the administration of justice. The acceptable reasons for granting judge alone trials and the grounds for excluding matters from their ambit are applied inconsistently, depending on whether the protection theory or the community participation theory is preferred.

AB - Recently, New South Wales amended its legislation to provide for judicial discretion when determining (upon request) whether an accused will face a trial by judge alone for indictable criminal matters. This article examines the application of those provisions and comparable legislation in Queensland and Western Australia, revealing an overarching tension as to the correct legal approach. Broadly, there is a dispute over the weight that should be afforded to the accused's right to choose or whether a presumption of a jury trial exists. Such a conflict arises from the different justifications for jury trials. On the one hand, the jury trial was envisaged to protect the rights of the accused. On the other, jury trials involve the community in the administration of justice. The acceptable reasons for granting judge alone trials and the grounds for excluding matters from their ambit are applied inconsistently, depending on whether the protection theory or the community participation theory is preferred.

M3 - Article

VL - 35

SP - 154

EP - 169

JO - Criminal Law Journal

JF - Criminal Law Journal

SN - 0314-1160

IS - 3

ER -