Reforms of Civil Procedure:
One recent reform of civil procedure is the introduction part time or acting judges. It is often suggested that in order to reduce delays in the court system, more judges would reduce the backlog by being able to participate in pre-trial procedures such as directions hearings. This must be weighed up against the cost to the public however in 2004, legislation was passed by Victorian Parliament allowing the appointment of part-time judges to operate as a measure to reduce delays within the civil system.
Suggested Reforms to Civil Procedure:
One suggested reform of civil procedure stemming from a report by the VLRC include:
- Parties who wish to use expert evidence must seek directions from the courts before being allowed to enter this evidence
- Expert evidence is to be restricted to what is reasonably necessary
- Too many expert witnesses can cause confusion, duties of expert witnesses should be clarified.
Suggested Reforms to the Jury System:
One suggested reform to the jury system is compelling juries to give reasons for their verdicts. It has been argued that juries should be accountable for their verdicts and if juries were to asked to justify their verdicts, it is less likely that they would agree on a verdict based on the grounds of getting a trial over and done with. Here, written reasons from jurors could be submitted to the judge and/or counsel and the matter could be dealt with by the court. This would assist to eliminate decisions based on bias or misunderstanding of legal complexity. However, if juries were made to give reasons, this may be used by parties to seek appeals if decisions were dubious or irrelevant.
Another suggested reform of the jury is providing the jury with some legal training. A concern of the current jury system is their inability to understand and apply complex legal factors and laws. If juries are expected to fulfil what is expected of them based on the purpose of a jury then arguable, juries need to be trained and exposed to the legal process to assist them understand what is required of them. This can include informing them on court processes and procedures, evidentiary rules, guides to deliberations and so on. Currently, this only goes as far as the Victorian Law Foundation producing a free booklet on jury service and jurors are currently shown a video on the role of the jury prior to empanelling.
Alternatives to the jury:
Alternatives to the jury differ from suggested reforms in that it considers removing the whole notion of the jury altogether for another 'alternative' method. Rather than aiming at improving the current structure which is what suggested reforms aims to do, alternatives consider other methods that can provide parties with a fair and just outcome without the use of the jury in place.
One alternative to the jury is abolishing the use of the jury altogether for civil disputes. In some states, this is already in operation. The reasoning behind this is that juries (in civil matters) are often criticised for their unpredictable assessment of damages, perhaps stemming from their lack of legal understanding. Many civil disputes also often involve complicated and technical facts which a judge would be more qualified to give a fair determination on. Also, given that only 3% of civil cases in the Supreme Court uses a jury, their validity and effectiveness in this matter is questionable. Here, the jury may be replaced by a panel of judges or only a single judge. This would reduce costs and delays and overcome the problem of common people not having the ability to understand law, evidence and decisions on facts.
Another alternative to the jury is having a panel of professional jurors. These people would carry out the same role as current jurors but they would do so on an on going basis as employees of the state. As professional jurors, they would be trained and familiar with court procedures and processes. This would assist to ensure that decisions remain consistent and overcome the lack of understanding from jury members. In saying that however, there is the potential to weaken the notion of jury members not being made up of common people with ordinary values as these jurors become part of the legal system. This could also cause a loss of independence in the jury.
One recent reform of civil procedure is the introduction part time or acting judges. It is often suggested that in order to reduce delays in the court system, more judges would reduce the backlog by being able to participate in pre-trial procedures such as directions hearings. This must be weighed up against the cost to the public however in 2004, legislation was passed by Victorian Parliament allowing the appointment of part-time judges to operate as a measure to reduce delays within the civil system.
Suggested Reforms to Civil Procedure:
One suggested reform of civil procedure stemming from a report by the VLRC include:
- Parties who wish to use expert evidence must seek directions from the courts before being allowed to enter this evidence
- Expert evidence is to be restricted to what is reasonably necessary
- Too many expert witnesses can cause confusion, duties of expert witnesses should be clarified.
Suggested Reforms to the Jury System:
One suggested reform to the jury system is compelling juries to give reasons for their verdicts. It has been argued that juries should be accountable for their verdicts and if juries were to asked to justify their verdicts, it is less likely that they would agree on a verdict based on the grounds of getting a trial over and done with. Here, written reasons from jurors could be submitted to the judge and/or counsel and the matter could be dealt with by the court. This would assist to eliminate decisions based on bias or misunderstanding of legal complexity. However, if juries were made to give reasons, this may be used by parties to seek appeals if decisions were dubious or irrelevant.
Another suggested reform of the jury is providing the jury with some legal training. A concern of the current jury system is their inability to understand and apply complex legal factors and laws. If juries are expected to fulfil what is expected of them based on the purpose of a jury then arguable, juries need to be trained and exposed to the legal process to assist them understand what is required of them. This can include informing them on court processes and procedures, evidentiary rules, guides to deliberations and so on. Currently, this only goes as far as the Victorian Law Foundation producing a free booklet on jury service and jurors are currently shown a video on the role of the jury prior to empanelling.
Alternatives to the jury:
Alternatives to the jury differ from suggested reforms in that it considers removing the whole notion of the jury altogether for another 'alternative' method. Rather than aiming at improving the current structure which is what suggested reforms aims to do, alternatives consider other methods that can provide parties with a fair and just outcome without the use of the jury in place.
One alternative to the jury is abolishing the use of the jury altogether for civil disputes. In some states, this is already in operation. The reasoning behind this is that juries (in civil matters) are often criticised for their unpredictable assessment of damages, perhaps stemming from their lack of legal understanding. Many civil disputes also often involve complicated and technical facts which a judge would be more qualified to give a fair determination on. Also, given that only 3% of civil cases in the Supreme Court uses a jury, their validity and effectiveness in this matter is questionable. Here, the jury may be replaced by a panel of judges or only a single judge. This would reduce costs and delays and overcome the problem of common people not having the ability to understand law, evidence and decisions on facts.
Another alternative to the jury is having a panel of professional jurors. These people would carry out the same role as current jurors but they would do so on an on going basis as employees of the state. As professional jurors, they would be trained and familiar with court procedures and processes. This would assist to ensure that decisions remain consistent and overcome the lack of understanding from jury members. In saying that however, there is the potential to weaken the notion of jury members not being made up of common people with ordinary values as these jurors become part of the legal system. This could also cause a loss of independence in the jury.