AUSTRALIA
Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse
Download: Jury reasoning in joint trials of institutional child sexual abuse: An empirical study
Professor Jane Goodman-Delahunty, Professor Annie Cossins and Natalie Martschuk
May 2016
ISBN 978-1-925289-62-6
Summary
This report forms part of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse’s research program in relation to the criminal justice system’s response to child sexual abuse in institutional contexts.
Child sex offenders are not a homogenous group and their offending behaviours vary widely. Offenders may offend against one victim or many victims, and they may engage in one incident of sexual abuse or multiple repeated incidents. The diversity and complexity of offending behaviours has a number of implications for the prosecution of child sex offenders.
The scope of this report
This study investigated the extent to which joint trials with cross-admissible tendency evidence infringed defendants’ rights, and the extent to which joint trials posed a risk of unfair prejudice to the defendant. In particular, we investigated the reasoning processes of juries in a simulated joint trial of sex offences involving three complainants versus a separate trial involving a single complainant.
Our jury deliberation and reasoning study investigated these issues by presenting 10 different versions of a videotaped trial involving the same core evidence to a total of 1,029 jury-eligible mock jurors. The study tested the impact of evidence strength, the number of charges and the presence of specific judicial directions on jury decision-making in joint versus separate trials.
The five key aims of the project were to:
Document juries’ interpretation of cross-admissible evidence in a joint child sexual abuse trial, to determine the extent to which juries engage in impermissible reasoning regarding such evidence
Compare the above decision-making processes with those of juries in a separate trial involving the same defendant
Note: This is an Abuse Tracker excerpt. Click the title to view the full text of the original article. If the original article is no longer available, see our News Archive.