John Ure, born and raised in Adamstown, was a NSW Police detective in the Hunter throughout the 1970s and early 1980s.
John was involved in several high-profile cases as well as the day-to-day travails of our community. We've asked John to contribute reminiscences about his experiences and he kindly agreed.
Here is latest crime file:
During my time as a detective I was involved in many criminal trials by jury, almost all resulting in a guilty verdict. Some were more memorable than others; murders, rapes, armed robberies, serious frauds. But one that stands out in my mind related to a relatively minor assault.
One evening in the late 1970s, I was called to a modest home in the Belmont area where a young woman, mother of an infant child, told me that very early that morning she had been confronted by a young man at her front door. She recognised him as their part-time milko.
When she declined his request to be allowed in, he opened the screen door, tried to force his way in and grabbed her around the neck. She bit his finger until he yelped in pain and loosened his grip, she then pushed him out and locked the screen door.
He apologised and told her a number of things about himself that were causing him stress: trouble at university, problems with his vehicle, and he said a psychologist was treating him. He then left. The young woman did not report the assault immediately and did not tell her husband when he came home from work as she feared he might take matters into his own hands.
She eventually told him and he called the police. I located the young man through the milko, and took him to Belmont Police Station where he denied outright that he had visited the young woman's house. I charged him with assault occasioning actual bodily harm and the case eventually went to trial before a jury at Newcastle District Court.
My evidence was minimal - arrest, questioning and denials, follow-up enquiries confirming the information he had provided to the young woman. Then the young woman gave evidence; nervous, but able to describe the events in a clear, honest manner. A most impressive witness. The jury took little time to convict and, from memory, the young man was handed a short prison sentence.
Not a spectacular murder case, but a clear example of the jury system at its best. A victim and an accused, with little supporting evidence either way. A young mother, virtually uncorroborated, heard and believed. Judgment delivered by the community on behalf of the community. Our criminal justice system, based on centuries of precedent, as it is designed to work. That is why this case stands out in my memory.
Trial By Jury
I have always been a believer in the jury system for criminal trials. Encyclopedia Britannica captures the historical essence of a jury: "It recruits laypersons at random from the widest population for the trial of a particular case and allows them to deliberate in secrecy, to reach a decision by a vote, and to present its verdict without giving reasons".
Yes, occasionally juries get it wrong or are unable to come to a unanimous or majority decision, but these outcomes are decidedly in the minority. The evidence might be too complex or the oral evidence, from witnesses on both sides, too conflicting for the jury to arrive at the truth. And the bar is set very high - unless the jury is convinced beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused they must find him or her not guilty.
Nonetheless the system works. And a jury trial is one of the best examples of democracy at work. A frequent consequence of a guilty verdict is that the accused will be sentenced to imprisonment and be deprived of their right to live in the community, perhaps for a long time.
With this consequence at play, is guilt or innocence a decision that should be left to an official appointed by government? Or should responsibility lie with the accused person's peers?
The question of when trial by jury was introduced is not settled. Some say it can be traced back to the Saxons. Others argue it was introduced by the Normans following their conquest of Britain. It has been linked to the Magna Carta.
However by the end of the fifteenth century, trial by jury had replaced trial by battle, trial by ordeal (often holding a red-hot iron or plunging an arm into boiling water and, in either case, not suffering burns proved your innocence) or compurgation (swearing an oath of innocence, backed up by sworn oaths by a dozen friends or neighbours that they believed your oath). As brutal or indecisive as these methods may have been, their outcomes still had the advantage of being "community-based" and not at the whim of the king or his representative.
Today, although some criminal trials are conducted by a judge alone, only at the request of the accused, trial by a jury of your peers is still the dominant form of determination of guilt or innocence for serious criminal offences in Australia.
