And *I'M* saying that a better system would be to implement BCIR and compulsory-for-government-to-hold referendums for certain legal changes/policies that may impede the rights of citizens- and possibly some de-facto rights against government taking people's property;
That way, it actually GIVES the public rights as opposed to taking someone's rights away.

Juries can ONLY come into play when an individual has been charged with a listed criminal offense- and as virtually almost every government policy has been technically legal, they have no role to stop them- even dubious laws pointed by the most prominent member of the judiciary can simply go through like any other. Also, judges reserve the right to disqualify juries and throw out the case without any input from them, too. There is no 'defense' against any tyranny- they simply don't have the power; and with this established, these 12 people were dragged to the courts for little more than symbolic purposes- even Germany and Switzerland (countries much more democratic than any Westminster nation) make little to no use of juries- you're free to make your own comparisons between their justice and ours.

But of course, if I'm mistaken and the War in Iraq, APEC security measures and Northern Territory interventions went through a jury, I would happily point out the Jury didn't *quite* serve as much a bulwark as theory suggests.

For government actions- It's simple- for public input into policy you either have:

-A binding referendum to the entire public to debate on as broad terms as possible and actually change/remove flawed laws and rights

-Conscript 12 random people (and hope they're 12 smart people that wanted to attend instead of 12 dummies who couldn't get out of it or had no other job to do) and leave it entirely at their discretion only at the exclusion of everybody else.

It's pretty obvious which is more practical and gets to the heart of the problem.

I have to say I find your faith in referendums quite touching, your Majesty; particularly since only I think about 8 referendums have ever passed, out of 42.
Howard's referendum on the Republic is a classic example. At a time when all the polls clearly showed very strong support (up to 90%) for a republic, it still went down. Why? A strong majority of that majority wanted a popularly elected President; precisely what our pollies didn't want. They want a rubber stamp, to be seen and not heard; someone who will in no way impinge on their own authority.
So naturally, the option of a popularly elected President was simply not offered, the majority voted down Howard's alternative, and the Monarchists claimed this as a victory.
In a truly free democratic society, the government should be just as responsible 'to do no harm' as any individual citizen. The whole point of having a theoretically independent judiciary to the executive/legislature is -I would have thought- so if the government does mistreat a citizen, that person has the right to take the Gov. to court.
In such a case, would you want the defendant to also be the judge and jury?
Without getting into grand juries, it appears to me that Peter Spencer has a genuine case against the government; probably a class action, as it affects many farmers.
He should have the right to a trial by jury.
Are you aware that recently a magistrate put a man in gaol for wearing a T shirt with the words “Trail by Jury is Democracy” on it? The man stayed in for 17 days, and probably would still be there if he hadn't capitulated.
In other words, Australia's judiciary apparently believe they can gaol people indefinitely, without a trial, on a whim.

Are you aware that recently a magistrate put a man in gaol for wearing a T shirt with the words “Trail by Jury is Democracy” on it? The man stayed in for 17 days, and probably would still be there if he hadn't capitulated.
In other words, Australia's judiciary apparently believe they can gaol people indefinitely, without a trial, on a whim.

May I have a reference please.

Hey JayB, Google John Bauskis.
for a transcript of resultant proceedings:
http://forum.dadsontheair.com/viewtopic.php?p=49386&sid=3aa45376307401df58efa4c309b3c88d

Peter Rutherford? Is that the serial pest? Who is Bauskis?

That serial pest need taken on a trip to the reef, for free.

Well yes I don't see what one is wearing or where they are wearing it has any meaning. It may to the person wearing it but to nobody else. It depends on how one reacts to the attempted provocation. I such a provocation is ignored then the provocation has failed. I feel that the Judge is at fault for reacting to the provocation. Rutherfords was wrong to not act on the order to remove himself when ordered to do so. Once he has removed himself then he can file for a Right of Wrongs. Then the Judge is on the wrong foot & explain why Rutherford was ordered to be removed. The act of wearing a T-shirt with writing which may or may not be provocative then can be judged.
However, if Rutherford had not have been thrown out then I presume he would have caused some other commotion in the court so as to cause himself to be ejected. Serial pests are like that.

This isn't about his rights it's about him being a bloody nuisance to everyone & every thing.

Ok Grim, I'll explain it again even more simply:

You have two possible situations:

1- a disaffected person begins a petition demanding a referendum phrased in a manner of his choosing to change a policy or law, and collects signatures freely offered from other concerned citizens until 100K (or less if its a local matter only) citizen's names are on the list, and a referendum (non-compulsory to attend of course- and phrased alike the original petition) is forced upon the government and the issue is stripped from their hands to the public- who may actually change the law, automatically rendering any breach by government an automatic breach either a criminal offence or simply a null declaration.

2- a disaffected person takes the government to a "criminal trial" over a civil disputes matter (which I'm pretty sure requires no jury anyway), but in this case (the person FEELS the government are acting criminally- even though virtually all of their conduct is clearly within their permitted powers as far as the law is concerned), insists 12 people must involuntary relinquish their time to help him get what he wants, and somehow, these 12 people are allowed to override Australian law to make a special exemption for this one person, and possibly somehow translates into broader legal change- at the discretion of only 12 RANDOM people.

Also, voluntary voters are at least sincerely interested in the issue- forced jurors may be just as easily unemployed or simply couldn't figure out how to get out of serving.

Tell me, which of the two is:
1- more democratic
2- respects people's rights more
3- is more workable?

I'm afraid I'm just not convinced that juries are more than just an archaic ritual, nor their existence at the present level of control over a case they actually have actually makes a difference- especially when so many (democratic) European nations have long since ditched them.