R v Jones & Ors (No10) [2007] NSWSC 1161

R v Jones & Ors (No10) [2007] NSWSC 1161

The applications were refused because the jury had actually deliberated for about nine full days, which was not inordinately long for a trial occupying about 3½ months with five accused, multiple charges and potentially 19 verdicts; the jury had not indicated after the majority verdict direction that it was unable to agree or required assistance; the interruptions caused by illness and other factors, though unusual and frustrating, did not cast doubt on the integrity of any verdicts; and the interests of justice, including the consequences of a retrial, did not warrant discharge.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 November 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceedings / Application to Discharge the Jury While the Jury Was Deliberating
Outcome
Applications refused.
Legal Topics
['discharge of Jury' 'jury Deliberations' 'majority Verdicts' 'black Direction' 'juror Illness']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['discharge of Jury' 'jury Deliberations' 'majority Verdicts' 'black Direction' 'juror Illness']

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 Proceedings / Application to Discharge the Jury While the Jury Was Deliberating

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the jury should be discharged because it had been deliberating for a lengthy period.' 'Whether interruptions to deliberations caused by juror illness and other absences undermined, or potentially undermined, the integrity of any verdicts or community confidence in the jury system.' 'Whether the jury should be discharged on the basis that it was apparent it could not agree.' 'Whether verdicts should be taken on matters upon which the jury had agreed.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applications were refused because the jury had actually deliberated for about nine full days, which was not inordinately long for a trial occupying about 3½ months with five accused, multiple charges and potentially 19 verdicts; the jury had not indicated after the majority verdict direction that it was unable to agree or required assistance; the interruptions caused by illness and other factors, though unusual and frustrating, did not cast doubt on the integrity of any verdicts; and the interests of justice, including the consequences of a retrial, did not warrant discharge.

Court Disposition

Applications refused.

Orders

  • ['The application to discharge the jury made on 27 June 2007 was refused.' 'The renewed application to discharge the jury made on 28 June 2007 was refused.' 'The applications to discharge the jury made on 29 June 2007 were refused.']