Inclusive Juries—Access for People who are Deaf, Hard of Hearing, Blind or Have Low Vision: Consultation Paper (html)

7. A system to make juries more inclusive

7.1 Chapter 5 explored some of the reasons why reform to law and practice is necessary to enable people who are deaf, hard of hearing, blind or who have low vision to serve as jurors in Victoria. A jury should be representative of the community including those in the subject groups. The law should be modernised to reflect contemporary views about equal participation in civic life and to comply with human rights standards.

7.2 In this chapter we seek to identify changes in the legal system that may be necessary to enable people in the subject groups to serve while maintaining confidence in the administration of justice. Then in the following chapter we identify some of the support mechanisms that could be used in the suggested system as well as possible adjustments to the trial process.

Changes to the Juries Act

7.3 One approach to improving participation would be to model reforms on recent changes to legislation and practice in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT). A similar approach exists in the United Kingdom (UK) for jurors who need supports to serve during the trial. In the UK a juror cannot be assisted by a non-juror in the jury room.

7.4 The Commission seeks community views about whether the ACT approach would work in Victoria. Those laws are broader than the reforms contemplated in this review. The new laws have not yet been used to assist a person in the subject groups to serve on a jury in the ACT. They appear straightforward and practical and are well supported by the practices and procedures of the ACT Sheriff’s office.[1]

7.5 However, the Victorian jury system is considerably busier than that of the ACT. In the ACT, juries are only used in cases where a person is accused of a serious crime in the Supreme Court.[2] In the year 2018–2019, 323 criminal cases were finalised in the ACT Supreme Court.[3] In contrast the Victorian County and Supreme Courts heard 599 jury trials in 2018 and 599 in 2019.[4] Judges in Victoria are less likely to know as far in advance about the nature of their upcoming trials and there is a much greater variability in terms of the accessibility of courtrooms across the Victorian County and Supreme Courts.[5] In contrast the ACT Supreme Court is located in a recently renovated building.[6]

Obligation to consider providing reasonable supports

7.6 In the ACT, if a person wishes to serve and it is identified that they cannot perform their role because of disability or insufficient understanding of English, the judge must:

• consider if support that would enable the person to properly discharge the duties of a juror can reasonably be given;

• and if satisfied of that direct that support be provided.[7]

7.7 Section 16 of the ACT Act includes a non-exhaustive list of examples of the kinds of supports to be considered, such as an Auslan interpreter, an assistance animal, a disability aid or support person.[8]


3 Should the Juries Act 2000 (Vic) be amended to specifically require the courts to consider the provision of reasonable supports for people who are deaf, hard of hearing, blind or with low vision?

4 Is the ACT approach appropriate for Victoria?

Early notification about the need for supports

7.8 In the ACT, prospective jurors are asked to advise the court if they have a disability and require support to serve. The summons form states:

If you have insufficient understanding of the English language and/or are suffering from a mental or physical disability and you wish to serve as a juror, please inform the Jury Management Unit immediately of your situation. Arrangements will then be made for the matter to be heard before a judge.[9]

7.9 This approach is consistent with the Disability Access Bench Book for Victorian courts, which states that ‘court staff should contact a person with disability as early as possible to assess their requirements and provide them with the necessary information for the hearing’.[10]

7.10 England, Scotland, Canada and New Zealand have processes that allow people to identify their needs and to discuss this with the court (see Chapter 4 and Appendix B).

7.11 The Commission understands that people in the subject groups usually self-identify to Juries Victoria about their disability. If legislation is changed so that there is a presumption that reasonable supports should be provided, current practices may need to change to ensure that the court has information about disability and required supports early in the selection process.


5 What would be the best way to notify Juries Victoria and the courts that a prospective juror is deaf, hard of hearing, blind or has low vision and of the supports they would need to serve?

Assessing whether support is reasonable

7.12 In determining whether a support can reasonably be given, the ACT Act provides that the judge may consider:

whether the support would impose a disproportionate or undue burden on court resources, facilities and time frames;

if the support would require a non-juror being present during jury deliberations, whether the non-juror’s presence would inhibit or restrict discussion, or unduly pressure or influence any juror;

any other issue the judge considers relevant.[11]

7.13 The Commission understands that the ACT Sheriff makes an initial assessment about the request for reasonable supports in the form of a recommendation that will be considered by the judge. If the recommendation of the Sheriff is not to provide supports, the matter will be listed for a hearing before the judge. The Sheriff will advise the prospective juror of their recommendation and the hearing date.[12] After consideration of reasonable supports the Judge has a discretionary power to discharge a juror:

If the judge is not satisfied that support that would enable the person to properly discharge the duties of a juror can reasonably be given, the judge may discharge that person from further attendance on the Supreme Court under that summons or appointment.[13]

7.14 In New Zealand, Section 16AA of the Juries Act 1981 provides a mechanism for the judge to consider whether a person with disability is capable of acting effectively as a juror. This process occurs before the jury is constituted, through a hearing that ‘must be heard in private’ where the judge may ‘conduct the hearing and consider such evidence he or she thinks fit’.[14]

7.15 In the UK, the Juries Act 1974 section 9B provides that:

Where it appears to the appropriate officer, in the case of a person attending in pursuance of a summons under this Act, that on account of physical disability there is doubt as to his capacity to act effectively as a juror, the person may be brought before the judge.

7.16 The approach recommended by the NSWLRC was:

A person who is blind or deaf and whose name has been included on the supplementary jury roll should complete a form accompanying the notice from the Sheriff disclosing his or her disability. The person should either claim exemption or, if prepared to serve, nominate the facilities that would assist him or her in participating as a juror. If summoned, the Sheriff’s Office would be responsible for ensuring, in conjunction with the court of trial, that reasonable adjustments could be made available. Forewarned of potential problems, the trial judge could deal with the capacity of the juror to serve in the particular trial in the presence of counsel and prior to commencing empanelment. Otherwise the usual position would apply unchanged, that is that the juror could be stood aside by consent, or the prospective juror could be challenged either peremptorily or for cause.[15]

7.17 An ‘assessment process’ does not apply to other prospective jurors who may not be able to perform their role. In that situation, judicial discretion and challenges are relied upon to remove the juror where appropriate. The need for an assessment of supports for prospective jurors in the subject groups arises because of the intersection between disability and the nature of evidence in a particular case. In some situations it may also not be practical, or might be disproportionately expensive to arrange supports. For example, it might not be reasonable to allow a deaf juror to serve on a lengthy trial with Auslan interpreters because it may extend the duration and cost of the trial. The Commission does not expect a judicial hearing will be needed in all cases, particularly where there is a presumption that reasonable support will be provided. In most cases we anticipate that supports could be arranged by Juries Victoria without the need for a hearing.


6 Should the trial judge make the final decision about whether or not a person who is deaf, hard of hearing, blind or with low vision can discharge their duties in the circumstances of the particular case?

7 Is a similar process to the ACT appropriate, where the Sheriff makes a preliminary decision and matters only need to go to a hearing if the recommendation is that support cannot be reasonably provided?

8 At what stage of the jury selection process should this assessment occur?

9 What role should the Juries Commissioner or Juries Victoria play in the assessment process? Should anyone else be involved?

10 What sorts of matters should be considered in determining whether it is ‘reasonable’ to provide supports? Is the ACT approach appropriate or should additional factors be listed in legislation?

11 Should prospective jurors be questioned in open court, or in a private hearing?

12 Does the Juries Commissioner need any further powers to allow Juries Victoria to better channel a prospective juror into a more suitable jury pool?

Actual capacity limitations

7.18 Even where all the appropriate steps have been taken to provide supports, a prospective juror who is deaf, hard of hearing, blind or with low vision may not be suited to perform their duty due to the particularities of the case at hand. In trials where the jury is called upon to assess voice or visual identification evidence, it may not be appropriate to include a juror who is deaf or blind. The issue is not the practicality of providing supports but whether the provision of support would overcome the juror’s disability sufficiently to allow them to perceive and deliberate on the particular type of evidence likely to arise in that trial.

7.19 The Commission does not anticipate that this would occur very often, but it is an important consideration. We seek community feedback on ways to address capacity limitations even when reasonable supports are available. One option is for the judge to consider this issue when assessing the reasonableness of providing supports. The judge could be provided with a power to exclude a juror where the judge concludes that the juror will not be able to perform their role, having considered the nature of the trial, the likely evidence, the supports and the abilities of the juror. In this situation, the juror could be returned to the jury pool and serve, with supports, in a different trial with different types of evidence.

7.20 The explanatory memorandum to the recent reforms in the ACT describes the operation of section 16, which:

recognises the reality that it may not always be possible or reasonable to provide support to a person to serve as a juror. For example, a person with a hearing impairment may not be able to effectively perform the functions of a juror during a trial at which voice identification is expected to be an issue.[16]

7.21 By ensuring that any matters relating to the ability of a juror to perform their role are determined early, the chance of the parties using peremptory challenges or stand aside challenges later may be reduced.

7.22 The New South Wales Law Reform Commission (NSWLRC) recommended that:

the Court should have power to stand aside a blind or deaf person summoned for jury duty if it appears to the Court that, notwithstanding the provision of reasonable adjustments, the person is unable to discharge the duties of a juror in the circumstances of the trial for which that person is summoned. This power should be exercisable on the Court’s own motion or on application by the Sheriff.[17]

7.23 In England, when the matter of the capacity of a juror with a disability to serve is heard,

the judge shall determine whether or not the person should act as a juror; but he shall affirm the summons unless he is of the opinion that the person will not, on account of his disability, be capable of acting effectively as a juror, in which case he shall discharge the summons.[18]

Other powers to discharge a juror

7.24 Judges have inherent common law powers and powers under the Act to exclude jurors who may not be able to properly perform their functions.[19] These powers might be exercised where incapacity only arises when a jury is empanelled and the trial is underway. It does not appear that any changes are required to these general powers. The alternative approach might be for the judge to rely on these existing powers when determining actual capacity issues of people in the subject groups.


13 Should the Act give a judge a specific power to exclude a prospective juror if it appears that notwithstanding supports, that person could not perform their duty in the circumstances of the particular trial for which the person has been summoned?

14 In what type of situations might it not be appropriate for a person who is deaf, hard of hearing, blind or with low vision to serve even where supports can be provided? Is this likely to occur often?

15 If a juror is excluded from a particular trial should they be returned to the jury pool to serve on a different trial?

Limiting the 13th person rule

7.25 The ACT has addressed concerns about a non-juror assisting in jury deliberations in a very straightforward way. Pursuant to section 16, if a judge makes a direction allowing an interpreter or support person, ‘the common law rule against having a non-juror in the jury room is not a relevant consideration’ and ‘a direction to allow a non-juror to be present during jury deliberations is solely for assisting the person to properly discharge the duties of a juror’.[20] The direction is ‘subject to an interpreter or support person making an oath or affirmation’.[21]

7.26 The oath and affirmation criteria are outlined in sections 45A, 45B and Schedule 1 of the ACT Act. There are separate oaths/affirmations for interpreters and support people. After the jury is sworn in, the judge is also responsible for ensuring jury members are aware of confidentiality duties per section 46A.

7.27 For example, the affirmation that an interpreter must take is outlined in the ACT Act:

I solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly interpret the proceedings and the jury’s deliberations and that I will not otherwise participate in the jury’s deliberations or disclose anything about those deliberations, except as allowed or required by law.[22]

7.28 The Commission is keen to hear community views about whether the approach in the ACT is appropriate to enable support persons (including interpreters) to assist in the jury room in Victoria.

7.29 In Victoria, Sections 42 and 49 and Schedules 3 and 4 of the Act set out the oaths that must be taken by jurors and the jury keeper. It may be necessary to incorporate additional oaths for interpreters and support people included in trial proceedings and jury deliberations into the Act. Section 78 of the Act may also need to be changed to ensure jury deliberations are not published or disclosed.


16 Should the common law prohibition on supporters or interpreters assisting in the jury room be modified by legislation?

17 Should the supporters or interpreters be required to swear an oath/s or affirmation/s to accurately interpret/support proceedings, maintain the confidentiality and secrecy of deliberations and not disclose any information learnt in the jury room?

18 Do new offences need to be created to deter or punish supporters or interpreters from revealing information about jury deliberations or to stop others from soliciting information from supporters?

19 Should supporters or interpreters be required to complete additional training to assist in jury deliberations and trial proceedings? What should that be?


7.30 Schedule 2 of the Act currently specifies that a person is ineligible to serve if they are ‘unable to communicate in or understand the English language adequately’.[23] It is beyond the scope of this project to address the ineligibility of non-English speakers, and to accommodate them to serve where possible (which is the case in the ACT).[24]

7.31 The English language requirement is a means of ensuring juror competence, since proceedings are conducted in English.[25] The Law Reform Commission of Western Australia (LRCWA) considered that the primary concern is that ‘all jurors should be capable of understanding the evidence (and court proceedings) as well as be capable of discussing this evidence and their views with other jurors.’[26] A juror with an inability to understand or communicate in English may be incompetent in those respects.

7.32 That a deaf juror requires the assistance of an Auslan interpreter does not mean they are unable to read or understand English. In the NSWLRC discussion paper this was briefly considered, and it was noted that:

it is arguable that the situation of a deaf juror relying on an Auslan interpreter but bilingual in Auslan and English, can be distinguished from that of other prospective non-English speaking jurors. Auslan is related to English; should the need arise to convey a precise phrase or sentence (such as a term of a contract) into English, this could be achieved by transliterating Auslan signs into English word order. Furthermore, the life experiences of Auslan speakers have been gleaned in an Australian context, aiding comprehension of evidence adduced at trial.[27]

7.33 This point may need to be reflected in the Act, so that people who are deaf who require interpreters are not unnecessarily precluded because they do not ‘speak’ English. Since the English provision is primarily in place to ensure competence, if supports are available to render a person ‘competent’ to the task of a juror, the justification for the exclusion of people who are deaf on this ground is unwarranted.

7.34 Schedule 2 also has the effect of excluding Auslan speakers who are not bilingual, that is, they only communicate through Auslan, and do not have English language or literacy skills (or have poor English skills). Auslan has no written form. A non-bilingual deaf person may face particular limitations dealing with documentary evidence in a trial. Auslan speakers who do not comprehend spoken or written English share commonalities with other non-English speakers who are automatically ineligible for jury service.

7.35 One reform option may be to amend the Act so that it simply reads that a person is ineligible if they are ‘unable to communicate in or understand English or Auslan’. Alternatively, the provision may be amended so that rather than excluding Auslan-only speakers, that person’s participation could be assessed by the judge on a case-by-case basis. This would address the concern that a person who communicates in Auslan but cannot read or write English would be unable to serve on a trial that involves significant documentary evidence.


20 Does Schedule 2 of the Juries Act need to be amended to accommodate people who use Auslan? What form should this amendment take?

The right to seek to be excused regardless of supports

7.36 If the Act is amended to provide for the assessment and provision of reasonable supports or accommodations, how should the law handle excuse from service? Should there also be a right to be excused on the basis of disability? Or should a person in the subject groups only be able to be excused on the same grounds as everyone else, on a case-by-case basis for good reason?

7.37 In previous reviews of this issue, disability organisations have expressed differing preferences.[28] On the whole, there was a consensus in report recommendations that people with disability may sometimes need to be excused on the basis of disability despite being otherwise eligible to serve with accommodations.[29] Reasons included:

• the late onset of hearing or vision loss may mean that the person has not come to terms with their disability nor with assistive technology

• a person who is blind may feel that they are more vulnerable, less safe in the community and more apprehensive about participating in an unfamiliar process.[30]

7.38 There was no consensus in earlier interstate law reform commission reports about how legislation should provide for excuse on the basis of disability:

• The NSWLRC in its report on deaf and blind jurors recommended that a person who is blind or deaf should be able to participate with supports but should also ‘have an unqualified right to be exempt from jury service’.[31] In 2007, a second NSWLRC report, Jury Selection, recommended that disability should enable excusal for good cause (now reflected in the law in New South Wales).[32] It was noted:

The preferable course is to treat it, on a case by case basis, as a potential ground for excuse for good cause, reserving to the authority that administers the Act the capacity to grant either a permanent excusal, or an excusal for a particular trial.[33]

• The QLRC considered that there should be no excusal ‘as of right’,[34] including for people with disability.[35] Claims should instead be considered on a case-by-case basis and addressed by reference to criteria associated with ‘hardship or inconvenience’.[36]

• In Western Australia it was also recommended that where a person is unable to serve because of a physical disability despite reasonable accommodation, there should be no need to make a separate application to be excused. Additionally, guidelines should be developed to ensure that reasonable accommodations are considered, and that decisions made around excusal and deferral follow a set process.[37]

ACT legislation

7.39 In the ACT there is no specific exemption or excuse ‘as of right’ for people with disabilities in the Juries Act 1967. However, the Act provides under Section 11 that regulations can be made setting out individuals who ‘may claim an exemption’. The Juries Regulation 2018 prescribes these categories and includes ‘a person with disability’ including ‘a person who is totally or partially blind, or totally or partially deaf’.[38]

7.40 Section 14 of the ACT Act also provides generally that ‘if the judge or the sheriff is satisfied that a person summoned or appointed to attend to serve as a juror has shown sufficient reason to be excused, the judge or sheriff may at any time after the service of the summons or the appointment, excuse that person …’ Non-exhaustive examples of ‘sufficient reasons’ are provided, including ‘pregnancy’, ‘illness’ and where ‘the person has care of children or of aged or ill people’.

International examples

7.41 Comparative international jurisdictions take differing approaches. In the United Kingdom there is no excusal ‘as of right’ for people with disabilities. Section 9 of the Juries Act 1974 provides for open-ended ‘excusal for certain persons and discretionary excusal’ and states that:

If any person summoned under this Act shows to the satisfaction of the appropriate officer that there is good reason why he should be excused from attending in pursuance of the summons, the appropriate officer may … excuse him from so attending.


21 If legislation provides for the consideration of reasonable supports should a person who is deaf, hard of hearing, blind or with low vision still have the option of being excused from service because of their hearing or vision loss?

Peremptory challenges and stand asides

7.42 The issue of peremptory challenges and stand asides negatively impacting the representativeness of juries was considered in the Commission’s report, Jury Empanelment. The Commission concluded that these challenges are necessary because they enhance parties’ confidence in the jury, and provide a safeguard in the event that other processes have failed to remove prospective jurors who are biased or who appear to be unwilling or unable to serve.[39] The Commission recommended reducing the number of challenges available to the parties from six to three in criminal cases, and from three to two in civil cases.[40]

7.43 These changes were implemented in Victoria in 2017.[41] The effect of the changes on the representativeness of the jury is unknown at the time of writing.

7.44 If the law is changed to allow people to serve with reasonable supports, there is a risk that a prospective juror in the subject groups may be removed by the parties through challenges late in the selection process. This risk applies to all prospective jurors. However, if challenges are made solely on the basis of disability it would undermine the effectiveness of reform. The Commission is keen to hear community views about whether this is likely to be a problem and if so, whether anything can be done to reduce the likelihood of it.

Peremptory challenges

7.45 It may be difficult and inappropriate to introduce guidelines that seek to moderate how the parties exercise their peremptory challenges. Peremptory challenges, by definition, do not require explanation and it would be difficult and time consuming to prove that a challenge had been exercised on a discriminatory basis.[42]

7.46 In the United States, cases have established that it is unacceptable for counsel to challenge jurors based purely on gender or race.[43] For example, in Batson v Kentucky a ruling was overturned as unconstitutional where the prosecutor used challenges to prevent black jurors serving on a case involving a black defendant.[44] However, as Horan and Goodman-Delahunty observe:

the United States approach redresses inappropriate bias in the peremptory challenge process but it is difficult to monitor because the parties will ensure that they justify their challenges with reasons unrelated to racism, sexism or other forms of prejudice.[45]

7.47 The Commission is interested to hear views about whether introducing guidelines for defence lawyers would help to reduce the likelihood that peremptory challenges may be used on discriminatory grounds. While they would not bind the defendant, who ultimately may exercise their right on whatever grounds they choose, they may operate as an educative tool for the Bar and thus a means of discouraging discriminatory approaches generally. The guidelines might be supported by the court stating something like:

You have a right to challenge to ensure that the jury will act impartially. All jurors are summoned and required to serve. The Court will facilitate the provision of supports if needed. Nothing in the law says that a person’s disability, age, gender or race will prevent them from fulfilling their role. You should exercise your right on the basis of the likelihood the prospective juror will act impartially in your trial.

7.48 This would serve to discourage the use of peremptory challenges on a discriminatory basis.


22 What can be done to reduce the likelihood of a peremptory challenge being used solely on the basis of the prospective juror being deaf, hard of hearing, blind or with low vision?

23 Should there be guidelines for the Victorian Bar outlining that challenges should not be used on discriminatory grounds including on the basis of disability?

24 Should the judge make a statement discouraging the use of challenges on discriminatory grounds?

Stand aside challenges

7.49 In its report Jury Empanelment the Commission concluded that the Crown right to stand aside jurors in criminal trials should be retained, as it is an important safeguard to ensure a competent and impartial jury.[46]

7.50 Stand aside challenges are less likely to be exercised arbitrarily, however there may be a need to amend prosecutorial guidelines in Victoria to explicitly disallow the use of stand aside challenges to exclude jurors on the basis of disability.

7.51 As noted earlier, the Victorian Office of Public Prosecution Guidelines state:

The Crown must never use its power to stand aside on the basis of factors such as age, sex, occupation, ethnic origin, religion, marital status or economic, cultural or social background.[47]


25 Should the guidelines for stand asides expressly state that disability is not a ground for the exercise of a stand aside?

  1. ACT Courts and Tribunal, Reasonable Support for Jurors Policy and Procedure (Report, June 2018).

  2. Victorian Law Reform Commission, Jury Empanelment (Report No 27, May 2014) Appendix E <>.

  3. Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, 201819 Annual Review (Report, 2019) 58 <>.

  4. Information provided from Juries Commissioner to Victorian Law Reform Commission, 6 October 2020.

  5. Ibid.

  6. Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, 201819 Annual Review (Report, 2019) 103 <>.

  7. Juries Act 1967 (ACT) 16(2).

  8. Ibid s 16(2).

  9. ACT Courts and Tribunal, Reasonable Support for Jurors Policy and Procedure (Report, June 2018) [4.1].

  10. Judicial College of Victoria, Disability Access Bench Book (2016) [4.4].

  11. Juries Act 1967 (ACT) s 16(3).

  12. ACT Courts and Tribunal, Reasonable Support for Jurors Policy and Procedure (Report, June 2018) 5–6.

  13. Ibid.

  14. Juries Act 1981 (NZ) s 16AA(4).

  15. New South Wales Law Reform Commission, Blind or Deaf Jurors (Report No 114, September 2006) 58 <>.

  16. Explanatory Memorandum, Courts and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2018 (ACT) 25, 26; Juries Act 1967 (ACT).

  17. New South Wales Law Reform Commission, Blind or Deaf Jurors (Report No 114, September 2006) 59 <>.

  18. Juries Act 1974 (UK) s 9B.

  19. Victorian Law Reform Commission, Jury Empanelment (Report No 27, May 2014) [3.231] <>; Juries Act 2000 (Vic) ss 12, 32(3), 43.

  20. Juries Act 1967 (ACT) s 16(4)(a), (b).

  21. Ibid s 16(4)(c).

  22. Ibid sch 1 Pt 1.1A.

  23. Juries Act 2000 (Vic) sch 2 cl 3(f).

  24. Juries Act 1967 (ACT) s 16.

  25. Law Reform Commission of Western Australia, Selection, Eligibility and Exemption of Jurors (Report No 99, April 2010) 93; Queensland Law Reform Commission, A Review of Jury Selection (Report No 68, 2011) 211.

  26. Law Reform Commission of Western Australia, Selection, Eligibility and Exemption of Jurors (Report No 99, April 2010) 93.

  27. New South Wales Law Reform Commission, Blind or Deaf Jurors (Discussion Paper No 46, 2004) [3.34] <>.

  28. See, eg, New South Wales Law Reform Commission, Blind or Deaf Jurors (Report No 114, September 2006) [4.5–4.7] <>; Queensland Law Reform Commission, A Review of Jury Selection (Report No 68, 2011) [9.21–9.22].

  29. Law Reform Commission of Western Australia, Selection, Eligibility and Exemption of Jurors (Report No 99, April 2010) 117; New South Wales Law Reform Commission, Jury Selection (Final Report No 117, September 2007) [5.15] <https://>; New South Wales Law Reform Commission, Blind or Deaf Jurors (Report No 114, September 2006) [4.7] <>.

  30. New South Wales Law Reform Commission, Blind or Deaf Jurors (Report No 114, September 2006) [4.6-4.7] <>.

  31. Ibid [4.7].

  32. Juries Act 1977 (NSW) s 14A(b).

  33. New South Wales Law Reform Commission, Jury Selection (Final Report No 117, September 2007) [5.16] <>.

  34. Queensland Law Reform Commission, A Review of Jury Selection (Report No 68, 2011) Recommendation 9.1.

  35. Ibid [9.26].

  36. Ibid.

  37. Law Reform Commission of Western Australia, Selection, Eligibility and Exemption of Jurors (Report No 99, April 2010) 117.

  38. Juries Regulation 2018 (ACT) R3.3, sch 1 table 1.4 item 8.

  39. Victorian Law Reform Commission, Jury Empanelment (Report No 27, May 2014) [3.243] <>.

  40. Ibid [3.270].

  41. Justice Legislation Amendment (Court Security, Juries and Other Matters) Act 2017 (Vic).

  42. Victorian Law Reform Commission, Jury Empanelment (Report No 27, May 2014) [2.36] <>.

  43. Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79 (1986); JEB v Alabama ex rel, TB 511 US 127 (1994).

  44. Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79 (1986).

  45. Jacqui Horan and Jane Goodman-Delahunty, ‘Challenging the Peremptory Challenge System in Australia’ (2010) 34(3) Criminal Law Journal 167, 180.

  46. Victorian Law Reform Commission, Jury Empanelment (Report No 27, May 2014) [3.243] <>.

  47. Office of Public Prosecutions (Vic), Policy of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Victoria (Policy, 17 September 2020) 18 [52] <>.