Cheatle & Anor v The Queen

The parties in this matter were Harvey Holland Cheatle and another appellant, represented by Mr K.V. Borick and learned friends, and the respondent, the Queen, represented by Mr M. Rozenes, QC, and learned friends. The Commonwealth Attorney-General and the Attorneys-General for South Australia, Tasmania, New South Wales, and Victoria intervened in support of the respondent. The case concerned the requirement of unanimity in jury verdicts for federal indictable offences.

The central legal issue before the High Court of Australia was whether unanimity is an essential characteristic of a jury for the purposes of section 80 of the Australian Constitution, which mandates trial by jury for federal indictable offences. The appellants argued that unanimity is fundamental to the jury's purpose, particularly its role in protecting an accused against state oppression.

The Court considered the historical and functional aspects of the jury system, noting that it involves ordinary people making decisions of great consequence. Several characteristics of juries were identified as having evolved to enable them to fulfil their purpose, including the number of jurors, the requirement of an oath, random selection, the right to challenge, isolation during deliberation, and the absence of a requirement to give reasons. The Court acknowledged that some of these characteristics, such as the sanctity of the jury room and anonymity, were under pressure. The argument presented focused on the potential for a move towards an American-style jury system, but highlighted that section 80 of the Constitution presented a significant obstacle to radical changes that might alter the fundamental form or structure of what constitutes a jury.