The case against the random black box of juries, who give no reasons which is contrary to the rule of law, is exemplified by this careful decision of the HCof Australia.

No equivalent review is avaliable in England, which is a disgrace.

/1

http://eresources.hcourt.gov.au/downloadPdf/2020/HCA/12

Juries are inconsistent with basic principles of justice.

It is common law romantacism that sees them live on, exemplified by Devlin's ridiculous quotes about their being a "sacred bulwark of the nation", "the lamp that shows that freedom lives."

No.

/2

Read the Pell decision.

The Jury cocked it up. And they gave no reasons, so we have no idea how they reached the result. Which is why the review is all about the Court of Appeal's decision.

No such review is possible in England and Wales (or Scotland).

/3

The last serious review of juries was the Thomas report a decade ago.

https://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/research-and-analysis/moj-research/are-juries-fair-research.pdf

It is feeble stuff, with a methodology I find astonishing.

It has been used for too long as a defence of the indefensible.

/4

We should use professional decision makers, trained in the task, who have to give reasons (ie judges). Not random people off the street.

End jury trial now.

/5