R v Kilincer (No. 3) [2022] NSWSC 1730

Because the juror knew Mr Brijeski, a witness whose evidence was in dispute and to be challenged, the Court concluded there was no choice but to discharge the juror under s 53B(b) of the Jury Act.

Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 01 August 2022
Procedural Posture: Criminal Trial; Accused Charged With Murder / Procedural Ruling During Trial on Discharge of Juror
Outcome: Juror discharged.
Legal Topics: ['discharge of Juror' 'juror Acquaintance With Witness' 'murder Trial']

['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'jury Law'] ['discharge of Juror' 'juror Acquaintance With Witness' 'murder Trial']

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

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trial; Accused Charged With Murder / Procedural Ruling During Trial on Discharge of Juror

Legal Issues

1 ['Whether a juror who recognised and knew a witness whose evidence was in dispute should be discharged from the jury.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the juror knew Mr Brijeski, a witness whose evidence was in dispute and to be challenged, the Court concluded there was no choice but to discharge the juror under s 53B(b) of the Jury Act.

Court Disposition

Juror discharged.

Orders

['Order pursuant to s 53B(b) of the Jury Act that the juror who knows Mr Brijeski be discharged.']