Should ordinary citizens decide guilt and liability?
Explain the role of the jury in the Australian legal system and evaluate its strengths and weaknesses.
What juries do in criminal and civil trials, how they reflect community participation in justice, and the strengths and weaknesses of trial by jury.
Reviewed by: AI editorial process; not yet individually human-reviewed
Have a quick question? Jump to the Q&A page
Jump to a section
What this dot point is asking
You must explain what juries do, where they are used, and evaluate their strengths and weaknesses.
What a jury does
In a jury trial there is a division of roles. The judge decides questions of law and directs the jury, and the jury decides questions of fact and delivers the verdict.
- In a criminal trial, the jury decides whether the prosecution has proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt. A criminal jury is usually made up of twelve people.
- In a civil trial, where a jury is used, it decides whether the defendant is liable on the balance of probabilities and may help assess damages, though civil juries are now rare.
Where juries are used
Juries are used mainly in serious criminal trials for indictable offences in the higher courts. Most criminal matters are dealt with summarily by a magistrate sitting alone, so juries decide only a small fraction of cases. The right to trial by jury for indictable Commonwealth offences is protected by section 80 of the Constitution.
Strengths of trial by jury
- Community participation brings everyday standards and values into the trial.
- Independence from the government and the judiciary protects against state power and bias.
- Spreading responsibility across twelve people reduces the influence of any single person's prejudice.
- Public confidence, because verdicts reached by ordinary citizens can be seen as fair and legitimate.
Weaknesses of trial by jury
- Complexity, because jurors may struggle with technical evidence or lengthy trials.
- No reasons given, so a jury verdict cannot be examined for the reasoning behind it.
- Possible bias or prejudice, despite directions from the judge.
- Cost and delay, because jury trials take longer and require selection and management.
Reform debates
Because of these weaknesses, there are ongoing debates about jury reform, such as allowing majority verdicts in some cases, giving juries better assistance with complex evidence, or removing juries from very long or technical trials. These debates connect to the wider tension between fairness and efficiency in the justice system.
Connection to the rest of the course
The jury connects to the adversarial system, the criminal and civil divide, the court hierarchy and access to justice. It is also linked to the express constitutional right to trial by jury under section 80, tying Topic 4 back to constitutional government.
Exam-style practice questions
Practice questions written in the style of SACE Board exam questions on this dot point, with worked answer explainers. The year tag is the paper they imitate, not the source.
2019 SACE Stage 22 marksExplain one advantage of using a jury in the adversary system of trial.Show worked answer →
For two marks, state one advantage and explain it.
One advantage is that a jury brings community participation and a cross-section of values into the decision. Twelve ordinary citizens, rather than a single judge, decide the facts, which spreads responsibility, reduces the risk of individual bias, and means the verdict reflects community standards of what is reasonable. This also increases public confidence in and legitimacy of the verdict, because the accused is judged by their peers rather than by the state.
2019 SACE Stage 22 marksExplain one disadvantage of using a jury in the adversary system of trial.Show worked answer →
For two marks, state one disadvantage and explain it.
One disadvantage is that jurors are legally untrained and may struggle to understand complex evidence, technical expert testimony or detailed legal directions, which can lead to verdicts based on misunderstanding or emotion rather than the law. Juries also give no reasons for their decision, so an error cannot easily be identified or reviewed on appeal. Jury trials are also slower and more expensive, because of empanelment, directions and deliberation.
2018 SACE Stage 21 marksOutline one reason why juries are not used to resolve civil disputes in South Australia and the Northern Territory.Show worked answer →
Civil disputes are often complex, involving detailed evidence and technical questions of fact (for example in negligence or commercial matters), so it is considered more appropriate for a single judge - who is legally trained and must give reasons - to decide them rather than a lay jury. Removing civil juries also reduces the cost and length of civil trials.
2018 SACE Stage 220 marks'The use of juries and the application of the law of evidence and procedure achieve just outcomes in criminal disputes in Australia.' Using examples, evaluate this statement.Show worked answer →
A 20-mark "evaluate" needs a contention, balanced argument and a sustained judgement.
- How they achieve just outcomes
- A jury of peers brings community values and shared decision-making, reducing individual bias and lending legitimacy to verdicts. The rules of evidence (relevance, exclusion of hearsay and improperly obtained evidence) and procedure (the presumption of innocence, proof beyond reasonable doubt, the right to cross-examine) protect the accused against the power of the state and aim to ensure verdicts rest on reliable, fairly tested evidence.
- Limits on just outcomes
- Untrained jurors may misunderstand complex evidence or be swayed by emotion or media, and they give no reasons. Strict rules of evidence can exclude relevant material on technical grounds, and the adversarial contest can favour the better-resourced party, raising access-to-justice concerns. Wrongful convictions and acquittals show the system is not infallible.
- Judgement
- A strong answer concludes that juries and the rules of evidence and procedure are designed to, and largely do, produce just outcomes by protecting the accused and testing evidence, but their effectiveness is limited by juror comprehension, technicality and inequality of resources.