Are judge-alone trials available in Victoria?
Not as a general option. In Victoria, if you are facing an indictable offence and the case is contested, your trial is heard by a jury of 12 in the County Court or the Supreme Court. Victoria does not give an accused a standing right to elect a judge-alone trial the way New South Wales does under its Criminal Procedure Act, and the same is true in Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia, and the Australian Capital Territory, all of which have permanent judge-alone schemes. Victoria never adopted one.
The only time judge-alone trials operated here was during the COVID-19 pandemic, as a temporary measure, and those provisions have lapsed. Understanding that starting point matters, because a lot of online material about “choosing a judge instead of a jury” is written about other states and simply does not apply to a Victorian trial. If you are still working out how your matter will progress at all, our guide on the path from charge to court sets out what to expect.
It is worth being clear about why this catches people out. The idea of asking a judge to hear a case without a jury feels intuitive, and it is genuinely available across the border, so people reasonably assume it is available here too. In Victoria it is not, and any advice about how to run your defence has to start from that reality rather than from a choice that does not exist.
What is the difference between a jury trial and a judge-alone trial?
The core difference is who decides guilt and whether reasons are given. In a jury trial, 12 citizens decide the facts and return a verdict, while the judge manages the trial and directs the jury on the law. In a judge-alone trial, a single judge decides both the facts and the law, and must give written reasons explaining the verdict.
That difference in reasons is not a technicality, because a reasoned judgment can make it far easier to identify a legal error and appeal, whereas a jury gives only a general verdict of guilty or not guilty. The table below sets out the main contrasts.
| Feature | Jury trial (Victoria) | Judge-alone trial |
| Who decides guilt | A jury of 12 citizens | A single judge |
| Reasons for the verdict | A general verdict, no reasons | The judge must give written reasons |
| Availability in Victoria | Standard for indictable trials | Not generally available since the temporary rules lapsed |
| The law | The judge directs the jury on the law | The judge applies the law directly |
| Prejudice and publicity | Jurors are directed to put these aside | A judge is trained to disregard them |
| Appeal points | Often based on misdirection or legal error | Written reasons make errors easier to identify |
How a jury trial works in Victoria
A jury trial follows a familiar shape. After a not-guilty plea in the County or Supreme Court, a jury of 12 is empanelled, the prosecution and defence present their cases, and the judge directs the jury on the relevant law before it retires to consider its verdict. In Victoria a jury verdict must generally be unanimous, but after at least six hours of deliberation a court can accept a majority verdict of 11 out of 12 for most offences.
That majority option does not apply to the most serious matters, including murder and certain serious drug offences, and it does not apply to Commonwealth offences, where unanimity is required. The jury does not give reasons, which is why appeals from jury trials so often turn on whether the judge’s directions on the law were correct.
How a judge-alone trial works
A judge-alone trial removes the jury and puts everything in the hands of one judicial officer. The judge hears the evidence, decides the facts, applies the law, and delivers a verdict with written reasons. Supporters point to those reasons as the main advantage, because they make the decision transparent and give a clear basis for any appeal.
The trade-off is that the accused loses the collective judgment of 12 people from the community, which some see as an important protection. In Victoria this is a live comparison mainly for understanding the system, since the option itself is not currently on the table for most trials.
Why does Victoria rely on juries?
Because trial by jury is treated as a cornerstone of the criminal justice system. The involvement of ordinary citizens in deciding serious charges is seen as a democratic safeguard, a check that keeps the system connected to community standards and shares the weight of judging another person across 12 people rather than one.
The Victorian Law Reform Commission and the courts have long defended the jury as central to public confidence in criminal justice, and that is a large part of why Victoria did not follow other states into a permanent judge-alone scheme.
Juries also carry practical consequences for how a defence is run, because persuading 12 lay people is a different task from persuading a single judge, and it shapes everything from how evidence is presented to how legal argument is pitched. If a trial does not go your way, the jury’s general verdict is also why appeal grounds so often focus on the conduct of the trial and the directions given, a distinction our guide on appealing a conviction versus a sentence explains in more detail.
What did Victoria’s temporary judge-alone trials actually do?
They allowed a judge-alone trial only in narrow, pandemic-linked circumstances. During COVID-19, when empanelling juries safely became difficult, Victoria introduced temporary provisions, first in 2020 and then again through the Justice Legislation Amendment (Trial by Judge Alone and Other Matters) Act 2022.
Under those rules a court could order a trial by judge alone only while a pandemic declaration under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 was in force, only where the accused consented after obtaining legal advice, and only where the court considered it in the interests of justice.
The prosecution’s consent was not required, but the court had to consider its position. Crucially, these measures were time limited by design and were set to be repealed roughly 12 months after they commenced, which they were. The Supreme Court’s own Notice to the Profession on criminal trials by judge alone reflected that temporary footing.
The takeaway is simple: those provisions were a response to a specific emergency, they depended on a pandemic declaration being active, and they are not a route to a judge-alone trial today.
This history matters when you read older articles or hear second-hand accounts of someone who “had a judge decide their case” in Victoria. That almost certainly happened during the pandemic window, under rules that no longer operate, so it is not a precedent you can rely on now.
Is a judge-alone trial “better” than a jury trial?
There is no fixed answer, because it depends entirely on the case, and in Victoria the point is largely academic. In the states where the choice exists, the honest position is that neither is universally better. Each suits different situations, which is exactly why lawyers weigh them carefully rather than reaching for a default.
When a judge alone can help an accused
A judge-alone trial tends to appeal where the case is legally or technically complex, or where there has been significant prejudicial publicity. A judge is trained to set aside emotion and inadmissible material and to focus on the law, and the written reasons give a clear record if an appeal is needed.
In a case that turns on a dry legal question rather than a sympathetic narrative, some accused would rather have a judge than a jury. That reasoning drives the strategic choice interstate, and it is useful background even though the option is not available for a standard Victorian trial.
When a jury can help an accused
A jury can be the better forum where the defence has real human appeal, or where the case invites ordinary people to feel a reasonable doubt. Twelve citizens bring a range of life experience, they can be receptive to arguments about fairness and common sense, and the requirement to convince all or almost all of them is a high bar for the prosecution to clear.
For many contested cases, especially those that turn on credibility, the jury is a genuine strength for the defence rather than a risk, which is one more reason Victoria’s reliance on juries is not the disadvantage it might first seem.
Where does the Magistrates’ Court fit in?
This is the part people miss: most criminal cases in Victoria are already decided without a jury. Summary offences, which make up the large majority of charges, are heard in the Magistrates’ Court by a magistrate sitting alone, so there is no jury and never was one. In that sense, a “judge alone” model is not exotic at all, it is how everyday criminal matters are resolved, and it comes with reasons for the decision just as a higher-court judge-alone trial would.
The jury question only genuinely arises for indictable matters that are contested in the County or Supreme Court. If your matter is in the Magistrates’ Court, the more relevant issues are often whether the charges can be resolved or narrowed early, something our guide on whether a magistrate can dismiss charges early covers, and how you present your case, which is why even people considering representing themselves in the Magistrates’ Court should understand who is actually deciding their matter.
What really shapes how your case is heard, and where to get help
The decisions that matter are about plea and strategy, not about picking a judge over a jury. Because a Victorian accused cannot simply elect a judge-alone trial, the choices that actually shape your case are whether to contest the charge or resolve it, how the defence is prepared, and how any trial is run. A guilty plea, for instance, removes the trial and jury question entirely and moves the case to a sentencing hearing, and the consequences of that decision are significant, which is why our guide on changing a plea after pleading guilty stresses getting it right the first time.
These are exactly the judgments where experienced criminal defence representation earns its keep, and where the outcome of a trial can flow through to later steps such as an appeal, which our criminal appeals and judicial review service handles.
If you are facing an indictable charge in Victoria and want to understand how your trial will be heard and how best to defend it, get advice from a criminal defence lawyer early, so the strategy is set before the key dates arrive rather than after.
