After writing about the reliability of juries last night, BOOYAH! R v Thaiday [2009] QCA 027. In this Court of Appeal decision, the trial juries decision was overturned due to a lack of evidence, and the real possibility that an innocent person was imprisoned.
Briefly, the facts were that the complainant (10 years old at the time) claimed to have been sexually abused in the mid 1980's (25 years ago). There was no evidence at all except that from the complainant, and the complainants evidence was contradicted by a family member, to whome the complainant had first reported the incident to. Beyond that, the trial Judge, in several lengthy directions given to the jury, basically told them there was not enough evidence to convict.
Despite all this, the jury convicted.
Justices Keane and Muir and Lyons, in a joint decision, quashed the conviction recorded at first instance.
Does this change my opinion on jury trials? (i.e. that they are better than a judge only trial) - No. While in this situation the jury clearly put too much weight on the evidence of the complainant (dismissing all contradictory evidence and not taking account of the lack of supporting evidence), this is an isolated situation. I still feel that juries generally have a solid grasp of their role and responsibilities and go about them in a serious, mature and thoughtful way.
Furthermore, this case shows that when they do not - it is not the end of the road for the convicted.
No comments:
Post a Comment