Cheatle & Anor v The Queen

In *Cheatle & Anor v The Queen*, the High Court of Australia considered the validity of majority verdicts in criminal trials concerning offences against Commonwealth law. The appellants, Harvey Holland Cheatle and another, had been convicted in South Australia based on majority verdicts returned by the jury, pursuant to section 57 of the *Juries Act 1927* (S.A.).

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether section 80 of the Australian Constitution, which guarantees the right to a jury trial for indictable Commonwealth offences, rendered the South Australian legislation permitting majority verdicts inapplicable to such trials.

The High Court concluded that section 80 of the Constitution mandates a unanimous verdict in trials on indictment for Commonwealth offences. Consequently, the provisions of the *Juries Act 1927* (S.A.) allowing for majority verdicts were held to be inapplicable in this context. The Court reasoned that the constitutional guarantee of a jury trial for indictable Commonwealth offences implied a requirement for unanimity, a principle fundamental to the common law tradition of jury trials.

As a result of this determination, the High Court ordered that the orders of the Court of Criminal Appeal of South Australia be set aside. In their place, the Court ordered that the appeals be allowed and that a new trial be held. The decision was made public to inform other ongoing proceedings.