R v Biljuh [2015] NSWSC 660

R v Biljuh [2015] NSWSC 660

The high degree of necessity required for discharge of the jury was not made out. Although the publicity and the first Crown Prosecutor's departure had some potential to distract the jury, the judge had already given three prompt and firm directions, the first Crown Prosecutor had not undertaken advocacy such as closing address or cross-examination of the accused that might be undermined by any loss of personal credibility, and the likely prejudice was regarded as a fleeting distraction. Logistical difficulties in briefing new Crown counsel did not justify discharge; an adjournment to 10 AM on Tuesday 2 June 2015 was sufficient in the circumstances.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Murder Trial / Crown Application for Discharge of the Jury During Trial
Outcome
The Crown's application for discharge of the jury was rejected and the trial was adjourned.
Legal Topics
['discharge of Jury' 'adverse Publicity' 'jury Directions' 'adjournment' 'crown Prosecutor']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['discharge of Jury' 'adverse Publicity' 'jury Directions' 'adjournment' 'crown Prosecutor']

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

Murder Trial / Crown Application for Discharge of the Jury During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether adverse publicity about the first Crown Prosecutor and her sudden departure irremediably prejudiced the jury so that the jury should be discharged.' 'Whether it would be impractical for another barrister to be briefed without markedly delaying the trial.' 'What adjournment was sufficient for new Crown counsel to familiarise himself or herself with the trial.']

Ratio Decidendi

The high degree of necessity required for discharge of the jury was not made out. Although the publicity and the first Crown Prosecutor's departure had some potential to distract the jury, the judge had already given three prompt and firm directions, the first Crown Prosecutor had not undertaken advocacy such as closing address or cross-examination of the accused that might be undermined by any loss of personal credibility, and the likely prejudice was regarded as a fleeting distraction. Logistical difficulties in briefing new Crown counsel did not justify discharge; an adjournment to 10 AM on Tuesday 2 June 2015 was sufficient in the circumstances.

Court Disposition

The Crown's application for discharge of the jury was rejected and the trial was adjourned.

Orders

  • ['The application for the discharge of the jury is rejected.' 'The trial is adjourned until 10 AM on Tuesday 2 June 2015.']