Regina (C'Wealth) v Elomar & Ors [No 12] [2009] NSWSC 448

Regina (C'Wealth) v Elomar & Ors [No 12] [2009] NSWSC 448

The application was refused because the publicity about the Melbourne sentencing was brief, muted and did not clearly connect the Melbourne proceedings with the Sydney trial; the possible links through names, location references or images were speculative and unlikely to have been made by ordinary jurors acting on the Court's directions. The Melbourne evidence was a small part of the overall Crown case, and repeated directions to decide the case only on the evidence and not to use the Internet were sufficient to avoid any real, non-fanciful risk that the accused could not receive a fair trial.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 March 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceedings for Conspiracy to Do Acts in Preparation for a Terrorist Act or Acts / During Jury Trial; Application by All Accused for Discharge of the Jury
Outcome
Application to discharge the jury refused.
Legal Topics
['discharge of Jury' 'prejudicial Publicity' 'terrorism Related Offences' 'fair Trial' 'media Reporting and Internet Publicity' 'jury Directions']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'jury Trial Procedure'] ['discharge of Jury' 'prejudicial Publicity' 'terrorism Related Offences' 'fair Trial' 'media Reporting and Internet Publicity' 'jury Directions']

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 for Conspiracy to Do Acts in Preparation for a Terrorist Act or Acts / During Jury Trial; Application by All Accused for Discharge of the Jury

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether publicity in New South Wales about sentencing in related Melbourne terrorism proceedings created a real risk that the accused could not receive a fair trial if the jury continued.' 'Whether the jury would inevitably or likely connect persons mentioned in the Sydney trial under pseudonyms or first names with offenders sentenced in Melbourne.' 'Whether existing or further jury directions were sufficient to address any risk arising from the publicity.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application was refused because the publicity about the Melbourne sentencing was brief, muted and did not clearly connect the Melbourne proceedings with the Sydney trial; the possible links through names, location references or images were speculative and unlikely to have been made by ordinary jurors acting on the Court's directions. The Melbourne evidence was a small part of the overall Crown case, and repeated directions to decide the case only on the evidence and not to use the Internet were sufficient to avoid any real, non-fanciful risk that the accused could not receive a fair trial.

Court Disposition

Application to discharge the jury refused.

Orders

  • ['The application for discharge of the jury is refused.']