Regardless of which of four options the jurors select, one outcome is certain: lawyers will be playing a much smaller role moving forward.

It is not surprising, therefore, that some of the loudest objections to the reforms, which seem likely to bring the Territory broadly into line with NSW by capping common law payouts at $500,000, have come from the legal profession.

NSW caps "non economic loss damages" at $521,000 under its recently overhauled scheme which came into effect last December.

That scheme, like the four options under consideration for the ACT, includes a "no-fault" component. Victims will be eligible to claim some assistance regardless of whether or not they contributed to the accident.

Under the ACT model at fault victims will not be eligible to claim "quality of life" lump sum payouts.

The big difference between the NSW and the ACT reform packages lies in the process used to develop them.

New South Wales's politicians, who took a lot of flak from a wide range of interest groups including the State's solicitors and silks, definitely own their decision.

That cannot be said of Mr Barr and his team who, instead, chose to select a group of citizens to act as a special jury to debate a complex, and potentially controversial, issue.

This was apparently done to place an additional stamp of legitimacy on an outcome which was always going to be driven by what this government and its advisers have been seeking for years.

Jurors were not given the option of recommending the continuation of the existing scheme. Nor were they given the power or the resources to develop recommendations of their own.

Their only real authority is to choose one of four "models" developed by a group of stakeholders, including insurers, lawyers and healthcare advocates.

Both the ACT Opposition and the ACT Law Society questioned the transparency and independence of the jury process last month after a critical report prepared by the ANU's Dr Ron Levy.

Dr Levy said the Government's framing of the existing CTP scheme favoured abandoning the status quo and could be seen as undermining "the key rationale of creating a citizen's jury as an arms-length decision making body" in the first place.

He was critical of the close involvement of expert decision makers in the jury's deliberation stages, saying this risked undermining the autonomy of the jurors and that the jurors had not been given enough time to get a good grasp of the subject matter.

"The government has tarnished deliberative democracy through this process and Canberrans will be rightly sceptical of any future process undertaken by this government," Canberra Liberals's leader, Alistair Coe said.

It seems fair to say that while the final result will not, by itself, necessarily be a bad one, the way in which it was reached was obviously far from perfect.