Trial by jury remains fundamental to criminal justice, but high-profile cases, media saturation and jurors’ exposure to outside commentary are testing old assumptions about impartiality.

Trial by jury is a fundamental feature of our criminal justice system and its origins date to the 13th century. In November 1215 by decree of the Fourth Lateran Council, Pope Innocent III prohibited trial by ordeal. Legal process had developed more quickly in Europe than in Britain, but following this holy intervention, judges there soon decided to adopt more rational methods of determining the prisoner’s guilt.

Persons who had then been required to attest to information sought by the monarch were adapted as jurors to judge members of their town or village accused of criminal conduct. No doubt everyone knew one another’s business. The prisoners were asked by the judge whether they were prepared to place themselves before God and their country and the jurors swore an oath to try the case which included the phrase “which country ye are”. Until recently similar words were used by a judge’s associate when empanelling a jury in a criminal trial in Victoria.

Jurors empanelled in a criminal trial take an oath to decide the case solely on the evidence and receive extensive instructions to proceed on that basis only. And whilst they may not be told they are the accused’s country, ‘which country ye are’, that fact is no doubt not lost on them and no doubt all are aware of the constant discussion that surrounds the criminal justice system.

However, it is rare for a criminal trial to generate extensive media coverage and expose the dark side of that discussion. Perhaps the last time it occurred here was when Lindy Chamberlain stood trial in 1982 for the murder of her daughter Azaria. The evidence in the trial........

© Pearls and Irritations