R v Munshizada [2021] NSWDC 598

R v Munshizada [2021] NSWDC 598

The impugned foreshadowed proposition was speculative, went beyond what was foreshadowed in the Crown case statement and opening, and should not have been made; however, any unfairness was either doubtful or curable by directions to the jury, so discharge of the jury was not warranted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial for Affray / Application to Discharge the Jury During Trial
Outcome
Application to discharge the jury refused.
Legal Topics
['affray' 'discharge of Jury' 'cross Examination of Accused' 'crown Case Statement' 'self Defence' 'unfairness']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['affray' 'discharge of Jury' 'cross Examination of Accused' 'crown Case Statement' 'self Defence' 'unfairness']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trial for Affray / Application to Discharge the Jury During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Crown Prosecutor's foreshadowed proposition in cross-examination that the accused had an arrangement with Mr Shamim to attack Jack Bernie went beyond the Crown case statement and opening." 'Whether any unfairness caused by the foreshadowed proposition could be cured only by discharge of the jury.']

Ratio Decidendi

The impugned foreshadowed proposition was speculative, went beyond what was foreshadowed in the Crown case statement and opening, and should not have been made; however, any unfairness was either doubtful or curable by directions to the jury, so discharge of the jury was not warranted.

Court Disposition

Application to discharge the jury refused.

Orders

  • ['The Crown was not to pursue the proposed question.' "The jury was to be directed to disregard the exchange and reminded that counsel's foreshadowing of a question is not evidence."]