Not The End of The Matter: Appealing Guilty Verdicts In Jury Trials
The devastation experienced by an accused person, along with their family and friends, following a jury’s guilty verdict—often leading to the revocation of bail and incarceration—does not mark the end of the road for those accused of a serious offence. This article explores three now-infamous miscarriages of justice, demonstrating how a guilty verdict can be challenged and potentially overturned.
Section 6 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 requires the Court of Criminal Appeal to set aside a jury’s verdict on the grounds that ‘it is unreasonable, or cannot be supported, having regard to the evidence’. The ‘judgement of the court’ must also be set aside ‘on the ground of the wrong decision of any question of law, or that on any other ground whatsoever there was a miscarriage of justice’—unless the court considers ‘that no substantial miscarriage of justice has actually occurred.’
What Is An Unreasonable Verdict?
The high-profile case of Cardinal George Pell, the former Archbishop of Sydney and previously Melbourne, led to the High Court finding that his 1996 conviction for the sexual assault of a 13-year-old choir boy was based on an ‘unreasonable verdict’.
The High Court, in that matter, described the task of a court of appeal in determining whether a jury’s verdict is ‘unreasonable’ or ‘cannot be supported having regard to the evidence’ as requiring proceeding on the assumption that the jury assessed the evidence of the complainant as credible and reliable, but that, notwithstanding that assessment, “either by reason of inconsistencies, discrepancies, or other inadequacy; or in light of other evidence- the court is satisfied that the jury, acting rationally, ought nonetheless to have entertained a reasonable doubt as to proof of guilt”.
In the Pell case, numerous witnesses gave evidence about the unlikelihood of the allegation that Pell, discovering the complainant and another choir boy alone in the Priest’s sacristy drinking alter wine, had sexually assaulted them. The High Court found that even assuming that the jury found the complainant’s evidence as thoroughly credible and reliable, the “compounding improbabilities caused by the unchallenged evidence” of the other witnesses “nonetheless required the jury, acting rationally, to have entertained a doubt” about Cardinal Pell’s guilt and that “Making full allowance for the advantages enjoyed by the jury, there is a significant possibility….that an innocent person has been convicted.”
Wrong Decision Of Any Question Of Law
Former NRL star Jarryd Hayne’s recent win in the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal, which overturned his conviction for aggravated sexual assault and led to the ordering of a new trial (which the DPP decided not to proceed with), is an example of a jury verdict being quashed on the basis that ‘the judgement of the court’ must be set aside ‘on the ground that of the wrong decision of any question of law’.
In the third Hayne trial, his lawyers discovered new evidence, consisting of messages from the complainant and a police report relating to the complainant attempting to confront a witness to make sure her messages with him were not revealed, messages which did not support her version of events. Under NSW law, the complainant’s evidence in the third trial was presented to the jury through a video recording of her testimony evidence from the original trial. However, in the original trial, Hayne’s lawyers were not aware of the damaging messages and police report, and those matters were therefore not put to her in cross-examination. In the third trial, the judge refused an application to recall the complainant for cross-examination regarding those messages and the police report.
This was found by the Court of Criminal Appeal to have been a ‘wrong decision on a question of law’, which meant the conviction was required to be quashed because the proviso referred to above could not be relied upon in the circumstances.
‘On Any Other Ground Whatsoever’: A ‘Miscarriage Of Justice’
Gordon Wood spent more than three years in jail before the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal overturned the jury’s verdict that he had thrown his then-girlfriend to her death at the Gap, Sydney, on the basis of a miscarriage of justice. This basis is far broader than the others outlined in section 6(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912, and the Gordon Wood case illustrates how the conduct of the Crown Prosecutor at trial can result in a ‘miscarriage of justice’.
In the trial, Crown Prosecutor Mark Tedeschi QC posed fifty questions to the jury and told them they were “the salient questions in order to decide the outcome of the case.” The Court of Criminal Appeal held that he had reversed the onus of proof, effectively requiring the defendant to prove his innocence. Chief Justice McClelland found that:
“When a prosecutor fails to comply with the required standards of fairness, an accused person may be denied a fair trial. …. I am satisfied that this occurred in the present case.”
What Happens Next?
Where a jury verdict is overturned on the basis of an ‘unreasonable verdict’, the accused is entitled to an acquittal, and the matter ends there. When there is a ‘wrong decision of any question of law’ or a ‘miscarriage of justice’, the verdict must be set aside unless the court considers that no substantial miscarriage of justice has actually occurred. The matter is then left to the Director of Public Prosecutions to decide whether to proceed with a new trial.
Turning the Tide: Overcoming Guilty Verdicts Through Strategic Appeals
Even after a jury’s guilty verdict, hope is not lost. As highlighted by the three notorious wrongful conviction cases, the road to justice can continue with the right legal guidance. At Jackson John Defence Lawyers, we understand the devastating impact a wrongful conviction can have on you and your loved ones. Our experienced team is committed to fighting for your rights, skilfully navigating the complex appeals process to overturn unjust verdicts and secure the best possible outcome. Trust Jackson John Defence Lawyers to stand by your side when the stakes are highest. Contact us today- 131 LAW [131 529].
The information provided in this article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. While we strive to ensure the accuracy and timeliness of the content, legal outcomes can vary significantly based on individual circumstances. Readers should not rely solely on the information provided and are encouraged to seek professional legal advice for their specific situation.
