1 Should peremptory challenges and the Crown right to stand aside be retained for criminal and civil trials in Victoria?
2 Is the number of peremptory challenges available to the parties in criminal trials appropriate?
3 Is the number of peremptory challenges available to the parties in civil trials appropriate?
4 Should the number of challenges for each accused in criminal trials vary depending on how many accused there are in the proceeding?
5 Should the plaintiffs and defendants have an equal total number of challenges in all cases, regardless of how many plaintiffs and defendants there are?
6 Should the number of challenges for each party in criminal or civil trials vary depending on whether additional jurors are to be empanelled?
7 Should there be any changes to the process for challenges during empanelment in criminal trials? If yes, what kind of changes?
8 Should there be any changes to the process for challenges during empanelment in civil trials? If yes, what kind of changes?
9 Is the information available to parties about prospective jurors in criminal and civil proceedings appropriate?
10 Should any more or less information be provided to the parties? If so, what kind of information should be added or removed?
11 Should the effect of the right to stand aside be the same as for peremptory challenges (permanent removal from the panel)?
12 Should the Juries Act 2000 (Vic) specify restrictions or prohibitions on the way in which peremptory challenges may be used?
13 Are challenges for cause an appropriate and adequate alternative to peremptory challenges?
14 Does the current law provide sufficient information to the parties upon which to base a challenge for cause? If no, what additional information should be provided?
15 Should the Juries Act 2000 (Vic) specify the criteria upon which challenges for cause can be made?
16 Should the Juries Act 2000 (Vic) provide further guidance on the process for challenge for cause?
17 Should the judge or the parties have the ability to question prospective jurors to determine their impartiality in certain circumstances?
18 Should parties have the ability to challenge a prospective juror by consent?
19 Should the Juries Act 2000 (Vic) specify that the trial judge has the discretion to discharge or stand aside prospective jurors in exceptional circumstances?
Calling the panel by number or name
20 Should judges be required to call the panel:
a) only by name?
b) only by number?
c) either by name or number?
21 If judges should have a choice to call the panel by name or number:
a) Should the Juries Act 2000 (Vic) specify one of these methods as the
b) If yes, which method should be the preferred method?
22 If judges depart from the preferred method:
a) Should they have to provide reasons for doing so?
b) If yes, what statutory criteria or principles should guide that decision?
23 Should the Juries Act 2000 (Vic) be amended to enable the continuation of trials with a reduced jury where there are fewer than 10 jurors (to lessen the need to empanel additional jurors)?
24 Should the jury consist of all the remaining jurors where additional jurors remain at the time the jury retires to consider its verdict? If yes:
• Should this be for all cases, or are there circumstances in which it may not be appropriate?
• If it should not be for all cases, what are the factors a court should take into account in deciding whether a jury should consist of all the remaining jurors?
25 Should Victoria adopt the reserve juror model in preference to the additional juror model as a way of avoiding balloting additional jurors?
26 Should judges be able to order discharge of one or more additional jurors by consensus?
27 Could the provision of more information to juries by the judge during a trial about the possibility of balloting off individual jurors reduce the impact of the balloting process on the jury?