Many people will be disappointed that self-confessor entertainer John Laws was not jailed this week. Others will be relieved that he was not. Unfortunately, it is likely that most people’s view on whether the man who possesses the golden tonsils should have been jailed would have been formed by their view of the man himself rather than upon the more important wider point of the nature of freedom of speech in Australia.
Laws was convicted under a section of NSW Jury Act that provides seven years’ jail for soliciting or publishing views from jurors about what went on in the jury room. The ACT’s equivalent also provides a penalty for any juror who goes to the media with their view of what happened in the jury room. Laws interviewed a juror in a murder case. The juror said she had been coerced into agreeing to an acquittal.
Laws protested ignorance of the law and said that his concern was to comfort a juror who felt she had had a hard time. He also apologised for doing what he did. That presents a jumble of excuses. Coupled with the background of his competitor on air Alan Jones having an interview with a victim, it seems that Laws was not being a crusader for freedom of speech or a crusader for telling the public about how juries work. No; it appears the entertainer was after ratings.
Even so, the freedom-of-speech question should transcend judgments about Laws’s radio style or his chase for ratings. It should also transcend judgments about whether the punishment was suitable for the crime or whether the rich and well-connected get different treatment by the courts than the poor and poorly connected.
The real question to be asked is what Laws was in the dock in the first place. What did he do that was so inimical to society’s well-being? The answer must be nothing. Indeed, his actions, though undoubtedly against the law, were for society’s good. The law that prevents people discussing what went on in a juryroom on pain of jail is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest in free discussion about the workings of the legal and political system. It is also contrary to the basis human right that people, including jurors, should have in discussing their experiences with the world at large.
The interests of freedom of communication and expression should outweigh any desire for finality of proceedings that comes with a jury verdict. For a start, the jury verdict is not the end of the mater. There are appeals. Secondly, people discuss the outcome of matters in any event. Thirdly, any discussion including discussion with jurors do not in any way affect the jury decision, so they cannot possibly affect the finality of that decision.
Once a case has been decided, there is no reason why jurors should not be free to discuss the case if they want to. However, they should not be subjected to media scrutiny against their will and the law should protect them with criminal penalties. But in this case laws had a voluntary interviewee. To make such an interview a criminal offence is a breach of principles of freedom of speech. That state and territory parliaments can enact such laws warrants a wider debate about whether Australia should have a Bill of Rights that would override such laws.
It can only be of benefit to society to have examples of how the jury system works in the open. If it is a viable, working method of making decisions about criminal guilt or innocence our trust in it will be confirmed. If, however, discussion and revelation shows the jury system acting perversely, we are the better for knowing about it so we can do something to change it.