R v Chalabian (No. 12) [2022] NSWSC 432

R v Chalabian (No. 12) [2022] NSWSC 432

The applicant juror was discharged because the COVID-19-related adjournment would interfere with a planned holiday and jury service did not require compelling the juror to abandon that holiday. The trial was not abandoned because both parties asked that it remain on foot, significant effort and resources had been devoted to it, the remaining jurors wished to continue deliberations, a retrial would likely occur much later, and an adjournment caused by COVID-19 did not justify discharging the jury. The trial was therefore to proceed with a jury of 11 after adjournment.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Jury Trial for Money Laundering Under S.400.3(1) Criminal Code (cth) / Procedural Ruling After the Jury Retired to Consider Its Verdict, Concerning Juror Discharge, COVID 19 Illness and Adjournment
Outcome
Applicant juror discharged; trial to proceed with a jury of 11 and adjourned until 19 April 2022.
Legal Topics
['juror Discharge' 'reduced Jury' 'covid 19 Self Isolation' 'adjournment During Jury Deliberations' 'money Laundering']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'jury Trial'] ['juror Discharge' 'reduced Jury' 'covid 19 Self Isolation' 'adjournment During Jury Deliberations' 'money Laundering']

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 Jury Trial for Money Laundering Under S.400.3(1) Criminal Code (cth) / Procedural Ruling After the Jury Retired to Consider Its Verdict, Concerning Juror Discharge, COVID 19 Illness and Adjournment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a juror with a planned holiday should be discharged after COVID-19-related adjournment of jury deliberations.' 'Whether the trial should proceed with a jury of 11 under s.53C Jury Act 1977.' 'Whether the trial should be adjourned until 19 April 2022 rather than proceed with nine jurors or discharge the whole jury.' 'Whether an adjournment during deliberations would fracture the deliberation process to such an extent that the trial should be abandoned.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant juror was discharged because the COVID-19-related adjournment would interfere with a planned holiday and jury service did not require compelling the juror to abandon that holiday. The trial was not abandoned because both parties asked that it remain on foot, significant effort and resources had been devoted to it, the remaining jurors wished to continue deliberations, a retrial would likely occur much later, and an adjournment caused by COVID-19 did not justify discharging the jury. The trial was therefore to proceed with a jury of 11 after adjournment.

Court Disposition

Applicant juror discharged; trial to proceed with a jury of 11 and adjourned until 19 April 2022.

Orders

  • ['The applicant juror is discharged under s.53B(d) Jury Act 1977.' 'Pursuant to s.53C Jury Act 1977, the trial is to proceed with a jury of 11.' 'The trial is adjourned until 10.00 am on Tuesday, 19 April 2022.' 'The jury is allowed to separate until 10.00 am on Tuesday, 19 April 2022 under s.54 Jury Act 1977.']