The jury hearing the trial in which Brittany Higgins has alleged that she was raped by a fellow political staffer in Parliament House in Canberra has now retired to consider their verdict.

Specifically, the trial judge directed them that they must ignore media reporting about the case and have regard only to the evidence that they have heard and their own common sense.

The direction given by the trial judge, ACT Chief Justice Lucy McCullum is not an unusual one but has greater than usual resonance in a case that has attracted such media interest and reporting over the lead up to and during the trial.  The interesting question is whether a jury as a randomly selected group of human beings are capable of following to the letter the directions of the trial judge or not.

In any jury trial the jury are bound to reach verdicts within the rules laid down by a trial judge.  As they are instructed, the law is for the judge and must be followed while the facts are for the jury and the jury alone to determine.

Jurys are also frequently instructed to put sympathy and prejudice to one side in their assessment of the evidence and to reach verdicts analytically and according to the burden of proff being upon the prosecution to a standard of beyond reasonable doubt.  This too may present an interesting proposition in the current trial where broader issues, beyond the actual scope of the evidence may obviously be at play.  Issues such as those arising from the #metoo movement and the broader treatment and respect given by men to women in Australian society.