“Rattenbury’s so-called reform to criminalise juror initiative shows just how out of touch he is with today’s society and criminal law processes.” HUGH SELBY imagines a what-if event for 2025. 

IT’S 2025 and the nation’s attention is upon the good governance of our territory. 

In an outcome that was not anticipated by the polls, the longtime Labor/Greens government was replaced by a Liberal/teals coalition. 

As colourists well know bright, medium shades of teal are great with blues and complement dark, warm traditional timbers, as often seen in the grand design homes of the most successful developers.

The new Assembly is meeting in a couple of classrooms in an abandoned primary school. This followed the firesale of the Assembly building to raise public funding for urgently needed repairs to roads and other infrastructure suffering “melt” damage from the blistering summer of ’24.

Where the Assembly and the museum once stood there is now a ginormous hole that is swallowing steel and concrete for a 60-floor apartment block with helipad and indoor pool (Civic pool has also been sold to raise government funds).

In the last days of the previous government the Rattenbury amendments to the Juries Act ensured that jurors would do as they were told and only as they were told.

These amendments followed “wide” consultation, meaning that the minister yawned and burped.

Meanwhile, a couple of dedicated public servants are waiting to recharge their e-cars so that they can get home. It’s a long wait. The kids will be sleeping and dinner will have to go back in the microwave…

“Did you see tonight’s news? Jury discharged and all 14 jurors charged with collecting and using info they got off the web.

Can’t be 14, mate. Only 12 on a jury.

Wrong. ‘Cos it was a long trial they sat 14 until the first selected 12 went to consider their verdict. They’d been out for days. Their spokesman told the judge they felt they could reach unanimous verdicts on all counts.

How’d the extra fact searching come to light?

Just as you’d expect. Two of the jurors became emotionally entangled. One of them told their partner during pillow talk what was going on in the courtroom and outside of it. Revenge, as they say, is sweet and not much concerned about collateral damage. The court staff received a tip off.

Did the jurors deny it? 

At first, but the revenge hound handed over the home computer. The forensic computer whizzes got to work. Then the police got warrants to seize all the computers accessed by all the jurors. 

The investigators used the skills they have honed to take apart paedophile groups, ‘cept this was easier because none of the jurors could use the dark web.

Was there a ring leader, someone who put the others up to it?

Seems not. They were, they are, a tight knit bunch. All their statements are the same, explaining why they did it. They all refer to the interests of justice; respect for the community; lawyers and judges failing to respect the intellect and experience of jurors; the legal system being completely out of step with 21st century sources of information; that kind of stuff.

Are they bailed or being kept in cells? 

They’re all bailed. The prosecution asked for a bail condition that the charged jurors not contact each other. That request didn’t go down well, made the prosecutors look stupid. Someone In the public gallery briefly held up a sign that read, “lovebirds not jailbirds”.

What about that big banner outside the courthouse?

Oh, the one that read, “Rattenbury had the same approach to transport as he had to the law: blinkered, out of date, uninformed”.

Yeh, that one. Bit unfair don’t you think?

Unfair to him? I wouldn’t know. I can’t blame him when I don’t even know if he could follow those reports that said the light rail project was a bad, bad, bad idea. And his so-called reform to criminalise juror initiative shows just how out of touch he is with today’s society and criminal law processes.

Whoa! Remember how the Higgins Lehrmann trial ended in 2022 because a juror ignored more than a dozen warnings from the trial judge to keep away from any info except what was presented to them at the trial?

Of course I remember it. The lesson, the blindingly obvious lesson, is that those sorts of warnings and punishment don’t work. You can’t tell people not to do what they innately want to do. People get a thrill from finding stuff on the web – they have to do it. Simple. Period. That’s life.

Whad’ya reckon is going to happen?

They’ll come to court in teal T-shirts and plead guilty. A celebrity lawyer or two will come in from interstate to make submissions about penalties to a judge who will also come from interstate. 

The argument for the defendants will be that they are of good, unblemished character and should have no conviction recorded. 

The prosecution will say that they must be punished as a deterrent to others minded to pull the same stunt. The judge had better be Solomon.

Makes a mockery of our law, doesn’t it?

Sure does. Better hope that Chief Minister Lee repeals it retrospectively, quick smart.”

Hugh Selby is the “CityNews” legal affairs commentator. His free podcasts on “Witness Essentials” and “Advocacy in court: preparation and performance” can be heard on the best known podcast sites.