Cheatle & Anor v The Queen

The parties before the High Court of Australia were Harvey Holland Cheatle (proposed appellant) and The Queen (respondent). The dispute concerned the interpretation of the constitutional guarantee of trial by jury under section 80 of the Australian Constitution. The proposed appellant sought special leave to appeal a decision, arguing that section 80 mandates a jury of 12 persons and a unanimous verdict, a right that should not be subject to state legislative variations.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether section 80 of the Constitution, which guarantees trial by jury, requires a jury of 12 persons and a unanimous verdict, or if it permits states to legislate for majority verdicts or a reduced number of jurors. The proposed appellant contended that variations in jury trial procedures across different states and territories, particularly the allowance of majority verdicts, undermine the fundamental nature of this right and could lead to injustice, especially in cases with cross-jurisdictional elements.

The proposed appellant argued that the constitutional right to trial by jury is a fundamental guarantee that implies a jury of 12 and a requirement for unanimity. They submitted that allowing states to deviate from this, for instance, by permitting majority verdicts or reducing jury numbers to save costs or avoid retrials, would render the constitutional protection capricious and potentially lead to unequal justice depending on the jurisdiction. The core of their submission was that the meaning of "trial by jury" in section 80 is not merely procedural but substantive, and any legislative attempt to significantly alter the composition or verdict requirements of a jury would be inconsistent with this constitutional imperative.