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

Jodie O'Leary

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

1055 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 Dive into the research topics of 'Twelve angry peers or one angry judge: An analysis of judge alone trials in Australia'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this