R v A (No 4) [2015] NSWSC 95

R v A (No 4) [2015] NSWSC 95

It was premature to discharge the juror at this stage because the gap between evidence closure and addresses (two days) was not likely prejudicial, and there remained a reasonable prospect the juror (foreperson) would return the next day. Therefore, the preference was to continue with a jury of 12 unless it was no longer feasible.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / Interlocutory Application During Trial (jury Management)
Outcome
Application for discharge of juror refused
Legal Topics
['jury Discharge' 'juror Illness' 'trial Interruptions']
['criminal Law' 'trial Procedure'] ['jury Discharge' 'juror Illness' 'trial Interruptions']

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 / Interlocutory Application During Trial (jury Management)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a juror should be discharged due to illness and absence during trial']

Ratio Decidendi

It was premature to discharge the juror at this stage because the gap between evidence closure and addresses (two days) was not likely prejudicial, and there remained a reasonable prospect the juror (foreperson) would return the next day. Therefore, the preference was to continue with a jury of 12 unless it was no longer feasible.

Court Disposition

Application for discharge of juror refused

Orders

  • ['The application for discharge of the juror is refused.' 'The remaining 11 jurors are to leave for the day and the trial will resume the next morning.']