R v Smith [2020] NSWSC 1583
The jury was not discharged because Ms Marshall's comment was unresponsive, gratuitous, obviously irrelevant and made in circumstances where the jury had already been warned about her cognitive issues; Harrison J was satisfied that properly framed directions would be understood and followed and would eliminate or adequately reduce the risk of unfair prejudice to Mr Smith.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 10 November 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Procedure Ruling / Application by Accused to Discharge the Jury During Trial
- Outcome
- Application refused
- Legal Topics
- ['application to Discharge Jury' 'prejudicial Evidence' 'jury Directions' 'witness Evidence']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Criminal Procedure Ruling / Application by Accused to Discharge the Jury During Trial
Legal Issues
- 1 ["Whether a witness's unresponsive comment that the accused said he wanted to kill his ex-Missus created prejudice that required the jury to be discharged." 'Whether an appropriate direction to the jury would be sufficient to cure or adequately reduce any potential prejudice to the accused.']
Ratio Decidendi
The jury was not discharged because Ms Marshall's comment was unresponsive, gratuitous, obviously irrelevant and made in circumstances where the jury had already been warned about her cognitive issues; Harrison J was satisfied that properly framed directions would be understood and followed and would eliminate or adequately reduce the risk of unfair prejudice to Mr Smith.
Court Disposition
Application refused
Orders
- ['Refuse application to discharge the jury']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment