R v Holmes (No 4) [2020] NSWSC 263

R v Holmes (No 4) [2020] NSWSC 263

Despite the passage of a lengthy period since giving the Black direction and the agreement that a reasonable time had elapsed, the judge accepted defence counsel's firm opposition to making a further inquiry and determined not to intervene, to avoid risking a miscarriage of the trial for legal error.

Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: S. Holmes
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Jury Deliberation; Interlocutory Procedural Ruling
Outcome
The judge declined to intervene and make an inquiry of the jury at this stage.
Legal Topics
Jury Deliberation, Black Direction, Judicial Inquiry Into Jury Progress, Murder Vs Manslaughter
Criminal Law Jury Deliberation Black Direction Judicial Inquiry Into Jury Progress Murder Vs Manslaughter

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

S. Holmes

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Jury Deliberation; Interlocutory Procedural Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge should recall the jury to inquire about their progress after a prolonged deliberation following a Black direction

Ratio Decidendi

Despite the passage of a lengthy period since giving the Black direction and the agreement that a reasonable time had elapsed, the judge accepted defence counsel's firm opposition to making a further inquiry and determined not to intervene, to avoid risking a miscarriage of the trial for legal error.

Court Disposition

The judge declined to intervene and make an inquiry of the jury at this stage.