Editing Jury (section)

=== Asia and Oceania ===

==== Australia ====

===== States =====
Each [[States and territories of Australia|state]] may determine the extent to which the use of a jury is used. The use of a jury is optional for [[Lawsuit|civil]] trials in any Australian state.<ref>For example {{cite Legislation AU|NSW|reg|ucpr2005305|Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005|29.2}}, {{cite Legislation AU|Vic|reg|sccpr2015433|Supreme Court (general civil procedure) rules 2015|47.02}}.</ref> The use of a jury in criminal trials is generally by a unanimous verdict of 12 lay members of the public. Some States provide exceptions such as majority (11-to-1 or 10-to-2) verdicts where a jury cannot otherwise reach a verdict.<ref name="LoC">{{cite AustLII|HCA|27|2015|litigants=Smith v The Queen |parallelcite= (2015) 255 [[Commonwealth Law Reports|CLR]] 161}} {{citation |url=http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2015/hca-27-2015-08-05.pdf |title=judgement summary |publisher=[[High Court of Australia|High Court]] (Australia)}}</ref> All states except Victoria allow a person accused of a criminal offence to elect to be tried by a judge-alone rather than the default jury provision.

===== Commonwealth (Federal) =====
The [[Constitution of Australia]] provides in section 80 that 'the trial on indictment of any offence against any law of the Commonwealth shall be by jury'.<ref name="s80">{{Cite Legislation AU|Cth|act|coaca430|Commonwealth of Australia Constitution|80}} Trial by jury.</ref> The Commonwealth can determine which offences are 'on indictment'.<ref>{{cite AustLII|HCA|53|2000|litigants=Cheng v The Queen |parallelcite=(2000) 203 [[Commonwealth Law Reports|CLR]] 248 |courtname=auto}}.</ref> It would be entirely consistent with the Constitution that a [[homicide]] offence could be tried not 'on indictment,' or conversely that a simple [[assault]] could be tried 'on indictment.' This interpretation has been criticized as a 'mockery' of the section, rendering it useless.<ref name="Lowenstein">{{cite AustLII|HCA|10|1938|litigants=R v Federal Court of Bankruptcy; Ex parte Lowenstein |parallelcite=[http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1938/10.pdf (1938) 59 {{abbr|CLR|Commonwealth Law Reports}} 556] at p 582 per Dixon and Evatt JJ dissenting |courtname=auto}}.</ref>

Where a trial 'on indictment' has been prescribed, it is an essential element that it be found by a unanimous verdict of guilty by 12 lay members of the public. This requirement stems from the (historical) meaning of 'jury' at the time that the Constitution was written and is (in principle) thus an integral element of trial by jury.<ref>{{cite AustLII|HCA|44|1993|litigants=Cheatle v The Queen |pinpoint=[23] |parallelcite=(1993) 177 [[Commonwealth Law Reports|CLR]] 541 |courtname=auto}}.</ref> Unlike in the Australian states, an accused person cannot elect a Judge-only trial, even where both the accused and the prosecutor seek such a trial.<ref>{{cite AustLII|HCA|24|2016|litigants=Alqudsi v The Queen |parallelcite=  (2016) 258 [[Commonwealth Law Reports|CLR]] 203}} {{citation |url=http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2016/hca-24-2016-06-15.pdf |title=judgement summary |publisher=[[High Court of Australia|High Court]] (Australia)}}</ref>

In November 2023, [[Indigenous Australians|Indigenous Australian]] law expert Pattie Lees called for greater inclusion of [[Indigenous peoples|First Nations]] people in the jury system to create a more "fair, just" system."<ref>{{Cite news |date=2023-11-07 |title='Imagine you're a white fella in front of an all-black jury': Aboriginal law expert calls to overhaul jury system |language=en-AU |work=ABC News |url=https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-11-08/calls-for-australian-jury-system-overhaul-first-nations-people/103073424 |access-date=2023-11-08}}</ref>

==== Hong Kong ====
{{Main|Jury system in Hong Kong}}

Article 86 of the [[Hong Kong Basic Law]] assures the practice of jury trials. Criminal cases in the High Court and some civil cases are tried by a jury in [[Hong Kong]]. There is no jury in the District Court. In addition, from time to time, the Coroner's Court may summon a jury to decide the cause of death in an inquest.  Criminal cases are normally tried by a 7-person jury and sometimes, at the discretion of the court, a 9-person jury. Nevertheless, the Jury Ordinance requires that a jury in any proceedings should be composed of at least 5 jurors.

Although article 86 of the basic law states that ‘the principle of trial by jury previously practiced in Hong Kong shall be maintained’, it does not guarantee that every case is to be tried by a jury. In the case ''Chiang Lily v. Secretary for Justice'' (2010), the Court of Final Appeal agreed that ‘there is no right to trial by jury in Hong Kong.’

==== India ====
Jury trials were abolished in most Indian courts by the [[Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973|1973 Code of Criminal Procedure]] .<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |date=August 30, 2016 |title=Jury system in Parsi Matrimonial Disputes |url=https://fb.com/notes/1302292416456423 |website=RIGHT TO RECALL AGAINST CORRUPTION – Facebook}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Jean-Louis Halpérin |author-link=:fr:Jean-Louis Halpérin |date=25 March 2011 |title=Lay Justice in India |url=http://www.droit.ens.fr/IMG/pdf/Lay_Justice_in_India_1.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140503122852/http://www.droit.ens.fr/IMG/pdf/Lay_Justice_in_India_1.pdf |archive-date=2014-05-03 |publisher=[[École Normale Supérieure]]}}</ref> Nanavati Case was not the last Jury trial in India. West Bengal had Jury trials as late as 1973.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Jaffe |first=James |title=After Nanavati: The Last Jury Trial in India? |url=https://www.academia.edu/36560172 |language=en}}</ref> Juries were not mentioned in the 1950 [[Constitution of India|Indian Constitution]], and it was ignored in many Indian states. The [[Law Commission of India|Law Commission]] recommended their abolition in 1958 in its 14th Report. They were retained in a discreet manner for [[Parsi]] divorce courts, wherein a panel of members called 'delegates' are randomly selected from the community to decide the fact of the case. Parsi divorce law is governed by 'The Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936' as amended in 1988,<ref name=":0" /> and is a mixture of the [[Panchayati raj|Panchayat legal system]] and jury process.

==== New Zealand ====
Juries are used in all trials involving Category 4 offences such as treason, murder and manslaughter, although in exceptional circumstances a judge-alone trial may be ordered. At the option of the defendant, juries may be used in trials involving Category 3 offences, that is, offences where the maximum penalty available is two years' imprisonment or greater. In civil cases, juries are only used in cases of defamation, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. Juries must initially try to reach a unanimous verdict, but if one cannot be reached in a reasonable timeframe, the judge may accept a majority verdict of all-but-one (i.e. 11–1 or 10–1) in criminal cases and three-quarters (i.e. 9–3 or 9–2) in civil cases.<ref>{{cite web |title=NZ's first majority guilty verdict |url=http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/2563945/NZs-first-majority-guilty-verdict |access-date=2009-06-03 |publisher=Stuff}}</ref>