Report by the Honourable WJ Carter QC on his Inquiry into the Selection of the Jury for the Trial of Sir Johannes Bjelke-Petersen
- Report length
- 510 pages
Summary
The report's own summary: 12.9 Summary of Findings, pages 475 to 480
Generated summary: written by an AI model from the report text and checked against the cited pages. This report is a scanned document, so its text was read by on-device OCR, which can misread words.
The Criminal Justice Commission commissioned an independent inquiry into jury selection for a former premier’s trial.
Report by the Honourable WJ Carter QC on his Inquiry into the Selection of the Jury for the Trial of... (26 August 1993), page 11 · Report by the Honourable WJ Carter QC on his Inquiry into the Selection of the Jury for the Trial of... (26 August 1993), page 3 · Report by the Honourable WJ Carter QC on his Inquiry into the Selection of the Jury for the Trial of... (26 August 1993), page 481
It examined contacts with prospective jurors, information given to the trial judge, jury-list creation and possible disclosure of confidential information.
Report by the Honourable WJ Carter QC on his Inquiry into the Selection of the Jury for the Trial of... (26 August 1993), page 12 · Report by the Honourable WJ Carter QC on his Inquiry into the Selection of the Jury for the Trial of... (26 August 1993), page 11
The inquiry concluded that an investigator deliberately deceived defence counsel, who then unintentionally misled the trial judge about polling of the original panel.
Report by the Honourable WJ Carter QC on his Inquiry into the Selection of the Jury for the Trial of... (26 August 1993), page 478 · Report by the Honourable WJ Carter QC on his Inquiry into the Selection of the Jury for the Trial of... (26 August 1993), page 479 · Report by the Honourable WJ Carter QC on his Inquiry into the Selection of the Jury for the Trial of... (26 August 1993), page 476
It found no manipulation of jury-list creation and insufficient evidence to justify official misconduct charges or a report for prosecution.
The inquiry proposed six rules to restrict publication, access, copying and retention of jury lists and when they became available before trials.
Report by the Honourable WJ Carter QC on his Inquiry into the Selection of the Jury for the Trial of... (26 August 1993), page 487 · Report by the Honourable WJ Carter QC on his Inquiry into the Selection of the Jury for the Trial of... (26 August 1993), page 488
In the body's own words
- Finding
O'Brien's intention in falsely deceiving Greenwood QC and Gundelach was to facilitate the discharge of Panel Z from service in the Bjelke-Petersen trial for which it had been specifically formed.
- Conclusion
Senior defence Counsel in providing the trial Judge with false and misleading information did so in the honest but mistaken belief that what he had been told was true, and without any intention to deceive or mislead the trial Judge.
- Conclusion
There is no sufficient evidence available which shows a prima facie case against any person in respect of whom a charge of official misconduct might be brought or which warrants the Chairman authorising a report pursuant to Section 2.24(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1989.
- Finding
The procedures used to create prospective jury lists and jury panels were not manipulated to include the name of any person who was subsequently empanelled in the Bjelke-Petersen trial.
Findings and recommendations
Allegations are not findings. A commission's finding or opinion of corrupt conduct or misconduct is not a finding that a person is guilty of a criminal offence, and the commissions say so in their reports.
No findings or recommendations are reproduced in this record. This does not establish that the report contains none.
Published responses
No published response was found.
Notes on this record
- The report PDF has little or no text layer; nothing was extracted.
Coverage
This publisher
- Reports from 1991 to about 2011 are listed on the CCC site but many pages link no report document; those records carry the page summary only, with findings and recommendations not extracted.
- Scanned reports without a text layer are not OCR'd; their findings and recommendations are not extracted.
- Findings and opinions are not extracted except where a report states it makes no finding about any person (section 48B of the Crime and Corruption Act 2001). Pre-2025 reports state outcomes in narrative form, which is not converted into findings.
- Recommendations are extracted only from a complete numbered run; reports that number recommendations differently, or set them inside narrative chapters only, are marked not_extracted.
- Government responses are recorded where the CCC report or public hearing page links one; the responses themselves (often Queensland Parliament tabled papers or ministerial statements) are linked, not fetched.
- The 1989 Fitzgerald Inquiry report, which the CCC hosts, is a commission of inquiry report and is not included here.