Regina v JP (No 2) [2013] NSWSC 1679

Regina v JP (No 2) [2013] NSWSC 1679

Continuing the trial with the remaining eleven jurors would not give rise to the risk of a substantial miscarriage of justice because the impermissible material concerned only the legal concept of malice in relation to murder and manslaughter, no other juror had sufficient opportunity to read the material, the discharged juror made only a brief reference to it, the foreperson promptly and decisively stopped discussion in both episodes and reminded jurors not to consider outside material, and the jury had received clear oral and written directions on the relevant offences without reference to malice.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / Application by Accused to Discharge the Jury After Discharge of a Juror for Misconduct During Jury Deliberations
Outcome
Application to discharge the whole jury refused; trial ordered to continue with eleven jurors.
Legal Topics
['juries' 'juror Misconduct' 'discharge of Jury' 'internet Research by Juror' 'risk of Substantial Miscarriage of Justice']
['criminal Law'] ['juries' 'juror Misconduct' 'discharge of Jury' 'internet Research by Juror' 'risk of Substantial Miscarriage of Justice']

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 Trial / Application by Accused to Discharge the Jury After Discharge of a Juror for Misconduct During Jury Deliberations

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the discharged juror's Internet research on legal definitions of murder and manslaughter contaminated the remaining jurors." 'Whether continuing the trial with eleven jurors would give rise to the risk of a substantial miscarriage of justice under s 53C(1)(a) of the Jury Act 1977.']

Ratio Decidendi

Continuing the trial with the remaining eleven jurors would not give rise to the risk of a substantial miscarriage of justice because the impermissible material concerned only the legal concept of malice in relation to murder and manslaughter, no other juror had sufficient opportunity to read the material, the discharged juror made only a brief reference to it, the foreperson promptly and decisively stopped discussion in both episodes and reminded jurors not to consider outside material, and the jury had received clear oral and written directions on the relevant offences without reference to malice.

Court Disposition

Application to discharge the whole jury refused; trial ordered to continue with eleven jurors.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to s 53C of the Jury Act I order that the trial continue with the remaining eleven jurors.']