(1982) 152 CLR 25, 102 and [2007] WASC 299 at [29]; See also O'LearyJodie, ‘Twelve Angry Peers or One Angry Judge: An Analysis of Judge Alone Trials in Australia’ (2011) 35Criminal Law Journal154, 164.
3.
R v Belghar [2012] NSVVCCA 86 (4 May 2012) [14] (McClellan CJ at CL).
4.
See, eg, JohnstonJane, ‘Juries and Social Media: A Report Prepared for the Victorian Department of Justice’ (Report, Centre for Law, Governance and Public Policy, Bond University, 2013) 9.
5.
ChestermanMichaelChanJanetHamptonShelley, ‘Managing Prejudicial Publicity: An Empirical Study of Criminal Jury Trials in New South Wales’ (Research Report, Law and Justice Foundation of New South Wales, February 2001).
6.
HoranJacqueline, Juries in the 21st Century (Federation Press, 2012) 180–1; News Digital Media Pty Ltd and Fairfax Digital Ltd v Mokbel and DPP [2010] VSCA 51.
WistrichAndrewGuthrieChrisRachlinskiJeffrey, ‘Can Judges Ignore Inadmissible Information? The Difficulty of Deliberately Disregarding’ (2005) 153University of Pennsylvania Law Review1251, 1255–6.
24.
See, eg, LaudanLarryAllenRonald J, ‘The Devastating Impact of Prior Crime Evidence and Other Myths of the Criminal Justice Process’ (2011) 101(2) Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology493; LondonKamalaNunezNarina, ‘The Effect of Jury Deliberations on Jurors' Propensity to Disregard Inadmissible Evidence’ (2000) 85(6) Journal of Applied Psychology932; RobbennoltJennifer, ‘Evaluating Juries by Comparison to Judges: A Benchmark for Judging?’ (2005) 32Florida State University Law Review469; GuthrieChrisRachlinskiJeffreyWistrichAndrew, ‘Inside the Judicial Mind’ (2001) 86(4) Cornell Law Review777; MacCounRobert, ‘Comparing Legal Factfinders: Real and Mock, Amateur and Professional’ (2005) 32Florida State University Law Review511, 518; SpellmanBarbara, ‘On the Supposed Expertise of Judges in Evaluating Evidence’ (2007) 157University of Pennsylvania Law Review I. See also the discussion in ChortekMadelyn, ‘The Psychology of Unknowing: Inadmissible Evidence in Jury and Bench Trials’ (2013) 32The Review of Litigation7.
25.
WistrichGuthrieRachlinski, above n 23, 1265.
26.
Ibid. See also Robbennolt, above n 24.
27.
See, eg, LandsmanStephanRakosRichard, ‘A Preliminary Inquiry into the Effect of Potentially Biasing Information on Judges and Jurors in Civil Litigation’ (1994) 12(2) Behavioural Sciences and the Law113, 119–20.
28.
WistrichGuthrieRachlinski, above n 23.
29.
LandsmanRakos, above n 27, 120–5.
30.
Ibid 114; Robbennolt, above n 24, 509.
31.
See, eg, WistrichGuthrieRachlinski, above n 23, 1330–1; Robbennolt, above n 24, 509; RakosLandsman, above n 27, 125–6.
32.
GuthrieChris, ‘Misjudging’ (2007) 7Nevada Law Journal420, 444; Robbennolt, above n 24, 509.
33.
GuthrieRachlinskiWistrich, above n 24, 829.
34.
See, eg, DevineDennis J, Jury Decision Making: The State of the Science (New York University Press, 2012) 152–80; KaplanMFMillerLE, ‘Reducing the Effects of Juror Bias’ (1978) 36Journal of Personality and Social Psychology1443.
35.
LondonNunez, above n 24, 937; WayeVicki, ‘Judicial Fact Finding: Trial by Judge Alone in Serious Criminal Cases’ (2003) 27(2) Melbourne University Law Review423, 447.
36.
LondonNunez, above n 24, 937.
37.
CookCatriona, Laying Down the Law (Lexis Nexis, 7th ed, 2009) 77.
38.
FindlayMarkOdgersStephenYeoStanley, Australian Criminal Justice (Oxford University Press, 4th ed, 2009) 172–3.
39.
HollandGeoff, ‘Judicial Instructions – Do Jurors Obey Directions to Disregard Prejudicial Publicity?’ in KeyzerPatrickJohnstonJanePearsonMark (eds), The Courts and the Media (Halstead Press, 2010) 86, 97.
40.
Ibid.
41.
BrehmJack W, A Theory of Psychological Reactance (Academic Press, 1966) 378; FinkelNorman J, ‘Commonsense Justice and Jury Instructions: Instructive and Reciprocating Connections’ (2000) 6(3) Psychology, Public Policy, and Law591, 591.
42.
Holland, above n 39; WegnerDaniel, White Bears and Other Unwanted Thoughts (Viking Press, 1989).
