R v Qaumi & Ors (No 56) [2016] NSWSC 1130

R v Qaumi & Ors (No 56) [2016] NSWSC 1130

Given the persistent, directed, and occasionally furtive nature of a juror’s conduct towards certain accused, and in light of evidence adduced (both by witness and judicial observation), there was sufficient reason to apprehend that the juror may not bring an impartial mind or may be unable to perform the functions of a juror. Accordingly, the juror was discharged under s 53B(b) and (d) of the Jury Act. The trial continued with a reduced number of jurors as there was no risk of substantial miscarriage of justice.

Parties
Prosecutor: Regina; Accused: Farhad Qaumi; Accused: Mumtaz Qaumi; Accused: Jamil Qaumi; Accused: Mohammed Zarshoy; Accused: Mohammed Kalal
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 August 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Interlocutory Ruling During Trial
Outcome
Individual juror discharged; trial to continue with 13 jurors
Legal Topics
Jury Discharge, Juror Bias, Court Discretion, Misconduct, Procedural Fairness
Criminal Law Procedure Jury Discharge Juror Bias Court Discretion Misconduct Procedural Fairness

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 7 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecutor

Farhad Qaumi

Accused

Mumtaz Qaumi

Accused

Jamil Qaumi

Accused

Mohammed Zarshoy

Accused

Mohammed Kalal

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Interlocutory Ruling During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the individual juror should be discharged due to misconduct, apprehension of bias, or for other reasons affecting the juror's ability to perform juror functions
  2. 2 Whether the trial should continue with a reduced number of jurors

Ratio Decidendi

Given the persistent, directed, and occasionally furtive nature of a juror’s conduct towards certain accused, and in light of evidence adduced (both by witness and judicial observation), there was sufficient reason to apprehend that the juror may not bring an impartial mind or may be unable to perform the functions of a juror. Accordingly, the juror was discharged under s 53B(b) and (d) of the Jury Act. The trial continued with a reduced number of jurors as there was no risk of substantial miscarriage of justice.

Court Disposition

Individual juror discharged; trial to continue with 13 jurors

Orders

  • The individual juror be discharged.
  • The trial is to continue with a reduced number of jurors (13).