Dr. Mark Hanna:

From my perspective, the issue is not that juries are unpredictable.

Juries should be as legitimate as judges, if not more so, with regard to making decisions on facts. If we are going to have juries as the triers of facts, then why are they not trusted on damages? They are trusted on trying other facts. It does not quite add up. A question was asked about how to determine it. The system in England and Wales has reversed the presumption. People still have a right to a jury trial but they have to seek it. It is not automatic. It is a judge who has to decide this on the basis of costs with regard to the complexity of proceedings. There are guidelines in legislation about what this is. In this jurisdiction there has been much discussion in the courts about who gets to make the decision and how judges can do so. There is quite a substantial body of law behind deciding it. Ultimately, it must be the judge who makes the decision. Even though juries are meant to be the triers of fact, they are excluded from many trials of facts already, such as with regard to public interest. It is a judge who makes a decision on this because it is considered too complex.

I do not know whether anyone here has been the defendant in a defamation case; I hope they have not. If they were named in a suit, they would probably opt for trial by judge alone rather than going down the road of waiting for a trial by jury. This is my honest opinion on it. That says something about the complexity that juries add. It is not that they are unpredictable; it is that they delay proceedings and add to costs.