Simplification of Jury Directions Project: A Report to the Jury Directions Advisory Group. Complicity inferences and circumstantial evidence other misconduct evidence jury warnings/unreliable evidence.

Justice Mark Weinberg, Jack O’Connor, Milla Bursac, Maria Luzza, Matthew Weatherson, Jamie Mark Walvisch, Tin Bunjevac, Michele Briggs, Jacinth Pathmanathan

Research output: Book/ReportCommissioned ReportResearch


This report (hereafter described as ‘the Report’), prepared by Weinberg JA and staff from the Judicial College of Victoria and the Department of Justice, considers in detail a number of areas of law which currently give rise to jury directions which are extremely complex, and often described as unintelligible. For reasons that will be later explained, four areas have been chosen for close analysis. These are:(a) complicity;(b) inferences and circumstantial evidence;(c) evidence of other misconduct – tendency and coincidence; and(d) jury warnings – unreliable evidence.
The Report builds upon recent work carried out in both this country and overseas upon jury directions by the Victorian Law Reform Commission and other law reform bodies. That work has concluded that jury directions are, by and large, unduly complex and in need of reform. The recommendations contained in the Report are designed to address the issues identified by those bodies and to reduce the undue complexity and length of jury directions currently given in this State.The Report considers the approaches taken to jury directions in other jurisdictions in Australia and overseas. It highlights practices and parts of model charges in those jurisdictions which, if used as a model for reform in this State, might reduce the complexity and length of jury directions.
Original languageEnglish
PublisherSupreme Court of Victoria
Commissioning bodySupreme Court of Victoria (Victoria)
Number of pages352
Publication statusPublished - Aug 2012
Externally publishedYes


  • Criminal Law
  • Evidence
  • Jury Directions

Cite this