A single hold-out on a 12-member jury in the ACT would no longer force a retrial under a legal change to be made by the ACT government.
Jurors who are found guilty of misconduct will also face a two-year prison term under the amended laws, which the government said would close a gap identified by Chief Justice Lucy McCallum.
But the ACT Law Society has raised concerns about the new juror misconduct offence and has reservations over the new jury verdict rules.
Attorney-General Shane Rattenbury introduced a bill to the Legislative Assembly on Thursday that will make nine amendments to the territory's Crimes Act.
"Both of these reforms are designed to minimise the prospects of mistrials or hung juries ... These are about reducing stress and reducing delays in the legal justice system," Mr Rattenbury said.
The new laws, when passed, will allow majority verdicts in criminal trials where the jury is made up of 12 jurors at the time the verdict is returned and the verdict is agreed by 11 of those people.
A majority verdict will only be allowed when the jurors have first deliberated for six hours and the court is satisfied the jury will not reach a unanimous verdict after further deliberation.
Mr Rattenbury told the Assembly a majority verdict will be allowed in relation to all ACT offences but not Commonwealth offences, which are covered by a constitutional requirement for a unanimous verdict.
"It is envisaged that if a trial includes both territory and Commonwealth offences, that the judge will be able to take a mixture of both unanimous and majority verdicts from the jury," he said.
The Attorney-General said: "A retrial may not always be possible or appropriate, which itself can increase the suffering of victims. This amendment is intended to reduce the potential prolonged stress, cost and trauma for all parties involved."
Mr Rattenbury said the two-year maximum penalty for juror misconduct was designed to show the community the importance of a juror's role.
The new law will prohibit a juror from making inquiries about the trial or requesting another person to make an inquiry on their behalf. A juror commits the offence, under the proposed laws, if they make an inquiry to obtain information about any matter relating to the trial without authorisation of the court.
"This offence does not otherwise override or infringe on the courts' inherent power to charge a person with contempt of court," Mr Rattenbury said.
ACT Law Society criminal law committee chair Michael Kukulies-Smith said the new offence should remind the public of the importance of following a judge's directions when they serve on a jury.
"If jurors believe they require more information in order to reach a true and correct verdict, the best course of action is always to raise this with the trial judge through the sheriff's officers who support our juries," Mr Kukulies-Smith said.
However the society's criminal law committee believes the new offence is unnecessary because case law established a contempt of court charge could deal with juror misconduct.
The society supported the move to allow majority verdicts in trials, which already take place in all other Australian jurisdictions, but was concerned by the rule requiring only six hours of jury deliberations.
"Trials in which verdicts are not reached are costly, both emotionally and in terms of resources," Mr Kukulies-Smith said.
"Avoiding this benefits everybody involved in trials, and the community."
