Note: This ended up being rather long-winded… and it took me a good couple of months to get around finishing.
I’ve always been curious about doing jury duty to get an insight into our justice system. I haven’t known anyone who has done it before so always assumed the odds of me being chosen were quite slim. This changed a month ago when I received a letter saying I was required as a potential Juror.
On Monday I arrived at the Perth District Court at 8:15am as stipulated on the notification letter. I was surprised to find there was at least 100 people already in the court building waiting to get through the security scanners. Everyone was processed rather quickly and was ushered up to the second floor into the Juror waiting area. This was a large room separated into two sections. The section on the left was filled with tables and chairs in a lunch room style. It contained a communal kitchen, toilets and an outdoor area for smokers. The section on the right, holding the majority of the potential jurors, was completely filled with chairs pointing towards a booth in the middle of the room. This booth housed a number of officials with microphones and computers so they could talk with us all.
I was seated on the right section among approximately 200 other potential jurors and it soon became apparent that things weren’t going to move very quickly. At approximately 9am a video began playing on the various televisions throughout the room. The video gave a fairly good introduction into the Jury process and what we would expect over the next few days. We had all been randomly selected from the electoral roll and would be allocated to trails. Most starting today, but some not for a day or two.
As part of the registration process on arrival every juror is assigned a number. From that point on everyone is referred to by that number for privacy purposes. After a few hours waiting around watching other jurors get their name called out, my number was called out for an assault trial. I was led out of the common area with approximately 30 other jurors. We were led into the court room where the two lawyers and the accused (in the dock) were waiting for us and the judge. Once settled in the judge appeared and the jury selection process begun. They wanted to choose 13 jurors (only 12 is required, but it’s good to have a spare) and proceeded to again call out numbers from a box. One by one the potential jurors were selected until the full 13 were selected.
I wasn’t one of the chosen. The 17 remaining potential jurors were led back out and we were told to come back the following day to start the whole process again. Since it was before 12pm, everyone was informed that they would be paid for a half day and we should go back to work for the afternoon if possible. If you were currently employed the government pays for any time that you miss work while fulfilling jury duties. If you are unemployed and receiving government assistance, you receive an extra $5 / day (seemingly a token gesture). All jurors have money paid into their bank account to cover the costs of getting to the court via public transport - regardless of how you actually get to the court house.
The following day I went back and went through the same process, however this time I was selected on a case. This time some of the jurors that were selected were challenged and weren’t permitted to be on the jury. Either of the two lawyers can challenge a juror and prevent them being part of the case without providing any reason.
Once we were all selected (again, 13 were chosen in case a juror fell sick and there were still the 12 required for a full jury) we were led back to the juror’s area of the court room and had to choose a foreman. What I expected would involve some level of debate, become a non-event, with one juror suggesting a juror based on their appearance - and everyone agreeing that sounded ok! It turned out he was a chemist and probably the best educated and clearly spoken of everyone present. +1 for judging a book by its cover.
We then went back into the courtroom and announced who our foreman was (he was required to sit in the first jurors seat) and the case started. The case involved around an alleged abduction of a young girl from a bus stop in addition to sexual assault and in the end ran for 3 days. On day 1 both lawyers provided a run down on the events they believe occurred and the prosecution showed video evidence of the accused being interrogated by police. On day 2 we were shown long video evidence of the young girl as she was under 16 at the time of the incident and is not permitted to appear in court. Near the end of the day some expert witnesses were shown and the accused took the stand. At this point we had heard all the evidence so the judge let us go early.’
On day 3 both lawyers presented their summaries of the case and made it very clear at what points the specific charges were alleged to have occurred and which evidence was or wasn’t relevant. Once the lawyers had said their bit (about an hour each), the judge had his turn. The judge went into even more detail about the specifics of the law and read the relevant sections from his “magic” book of law. I was impressed with his ability to convert complex law into something logical and understandable for the jurors - and relevant to the case at hand.
I started out very skeptical of the jury system. Many of the potential jurors had already made themselves unavailable to jury duty as a result of work commitments or having jobs deemed too important (doctors, defense personnel, lawyers etc.) I expected this would leave us with the unemployed and generally less educated parts of society. Accordingly I assumed that this would compromise the decision making process of the jury to make the best decision on the case at hand.
Although my case was only one of many and not necessarily representative, it did appear to have the makeup I expected. One juror couldn’t read and about half were unemployed, however there were a few young people (myself included), which I hadn’t initially considered.
Throughout the court proceedings there wasn’t huge amounts of time for the jury to discuss the case. In the breaks we did have the jurors appeared more interested in cracking fairly crude jokes (especially considering the case) and I thought things were looking a little bleak for a rational decision. However, once all the evidence was heard and we started deliberating everyone suddenly took their role as a juror much more seriously - to my relief.
Unfortunately (but appropriately) I am prohibited from discussing what the jury discussed behind closed doors, however my confidence in the jury system was enhanced. Our jury was a variety of people from different ages, location and walks of life - each with different experiences. As the two key people in the trial were young, the older jurors looked at us younger ones as a guide to what was “reasonable” as a young person. This differing of views, experiences and opinion is what provided the basis for an appropriate decision - rather than education, intelligence or social status.
We were required for all 12 members of the jury (the 13th had been removed with a ballot earlier) to arrive at a unanimous decision. I feel that the case we had was fairly clear cut and it took us less than an hour to reach a verdict on all the charges placed before us. The comment was made by a few of us that if our case had been harder or involved murder it would be a very difficult process, especially if one or two jurors couldn’t be convinced one way or the other. This is obviously an issue as all the jurors are clearly told that they should try to make the correct decision regarding guilt and leave the sentencing up to the judge. There is also extensive support and counseling available to the jurors once the case is over.
Overall, I learnt a valuable lesson about not pre-judging a group of people and gained an increased faith in our criminal justice system. Some of the other jurors had been selected previously and there was an assumption if chosen once, it was likely you would be chosen again. If I do get the opportunity again, I will certainly take it.
I live very close to Victoria Park, but as we have 3 race tracks in Adelaide I can never remember its name. I have a theory that if I blog the name of the park - I won’t forget it!