Accident, provocation and jury reforms

In 2008, there were a number of areas in the criminal law in Queensland in which there was law reform activity. These include jury reform, accident and provocation.

Jury option needs early verdict

The decision in Rubin v Buchanan [2011] QSC 275 confirms that a trial by jury should be considered at the outset of a proceeding.

Trial by jury in civil proceedings : “convenience” and the philosophy of the UCPR

In Syddall v National Mutual Life Association of Australasia Limited [2008] QSC 101 Daubney J ordered the action be tried without a jury. His judgment considered the circumstances in which a trial involves any technical, scientific or other issue that can not be “conveniently” considered and resolved by a jury as provided in r 474 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld)

Doctrinal research : researching the jury

This chapter examines the doctrinal methodology which many lawyers consider best typifies a distinctly legal approach to research. Legal research skills have been identified as a core skill for lawyers, and within the profession, such skills are regarded as synonymous with the doctrinal research method. Good legal research skills are a necessary step in attaining the ability to ‘think like a lawyer’ and achieving valid legal reasoning outcomes. For lawyers, therefore, the doctrinal method is an intuitive aspect of legal work. Yet as this chapter demonstrates, the doctrinal methodology is not without its detractors. There have been serious criticisms of the method put forward by exponents of the various critical legal theories, as well as a perception in some academic circles that the doctrinal research method is nothing more than mere ‘scholarship’ and as a result less compelling or respected than the research methods used by those in the sciences and social sciences. Despite these attacks, and the incursions on the method posed by the growth in the use of non-doctrinal and interdisciplinary research work by lawyers, the argument put forward in this chapter is that the doctrinal method still necessarily forms the basis for most, if not all, legal research projects.

Right to trial by jury - construction of Uniform Civil Procedure r474

In Smit v Chan [2001] QSC 493 (Supreme Court of Queensland, S1233 of 1995, Mullins J, 21.12.2001) the sixth defendant successfully obtained an order that a complex medical negligence action be tried without a jury. This was the first application to be decided under r474 of UCPR 1999, and the decision is a significant precedent for defendants in similar cases who want to avoid the unpredictability of outcome and the inflated damages awards sometimes associated with jury trials.

Safeguard your access to trial by jury

In Watney v Kencian & Wooley [2014] QDC 290 Morxone QC DCJ considered the implications for defendants who desired a trial by jury, but who had relied on the election for that mode of trial made by the plaintiff in the statement of claim.

Trial by jury election less of a trial

In Kencian v Watney [2015] QCA 212 the Queensland Court of Appeal allowed an appeal against the decision in Watney v Kencian & Wooley [2014] QSC 290 and ordered, pursuant to r475(1) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) that the trial proceed as a trial by jury.

Distributed belief revision as applied within a descriptive model of jury deliberations

Belief revision is a well-research topic within AI. We argue that the new model of distributed belief revision as discussed here is suitable for general modelling of judicial decision making, along with extant approach as known from jury research. The new approach to belief revision is of general interest, whenever attitudes to information are to be simulated within a multi-agent environment with agents holding local beliefs yet by interaction with, and influencing, other agents who are deliberating collectively. In the approach proposed, it's the entire group of agents, not an external supervisor, who integrate the different opinions. This is achieved through an election mechanism, The principle of "priority to the incoming information" as known from AI models of belief revision are problematic, when applied to factfinding by a jury. The present approach incorporates a computable model for local belief revision, such that a principle of recoverability is adopted. By this principle, any previously held belief must belong to the current cognitive state if consistent with it. For the purposes of jury simulation such a model calls for refinement. Yet we claim, it constitutes a valid basis for an open system where other AI functionalities (or outer stiumuli) could attempt to handle other aspects of the deliberation which are more specifi to legal narrative, to argumentation in court, and then to the debate among the jurors.

Belief revision as applied within a descriptive model of jury deliberations

Belief revision is a well-researched topic within Artificial Intelligence (AI). We argue that the new model of belief revision as discussed here is suitable for general modelling of judicial decision making, along with the extant approach as known from jury research. The new approach to belief revision is of general interest, whenever attitudes to information are to be simulated within a multi-agent environment with agents holding local beliefs yet by interacting with, and influencing, other agents who are deliberating collectively. The principle of 'priority to the incoming information', as known from AI models of belief revision, is problematic when applied to factfinding by a jury. The present approach incorporates a computable model for local belief revision, such that a principle of recoverability is adopted. By this principle, any previously held belief must belong to the current cognitive state if consistent with it. For the purposes of jury simulation such a model calls for refinement. Yet, we claim, it constitutes a valid basis for an open system where other AI functionalities (or outer stimuli) could attempt to handle other aspects of the deliberation which are more specific to legal narratives, to argumentation in court, and then to the debate among the jurors.