R v Clark [No 2] [2008] NSWSC 821
The Court was satisfied that the juror ultimately disclosed what he knew, that the conversation known to the Court concerned the history of the trial rather than prejudicial material about the accused, and that any suggestion of further prejudicial information was speculative. There was therefore no basis to discharge either the jury or the particular juror.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 27 March 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Proceedings for Murder / Application to Discharge Juror and Jury During Trial
- Outcome
- Application for discharge refused.
- Legal Topics
- ['jury Discharge' 'juror Misconduct' 'previous Trial' 'hung Jury' 'potential Prejudice']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceedings for Murder / Application to Discharge Juror and Jury During Trial
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the jury should be discharged because a juror had discussed information that the accused had previously been tried.' 'Whether the particular juror should be discharged because he may have withheld prejudicial information.' 'Whether, if the juror were discharged, the trial should proceed with a reduced jury panel.']
Ratio Decidendi
The Court was satisfied that the juror ultimately disclosed what he knew, that the conversation known to the Court concerned the history of the trial rather than prejudicial material about the accused, and that any suggestion of further prejudicial information was speculative. There was therefore no basis to discharge either the jury or the particular juror.
Court Disposition
Application for discharge refused.
Orders
- ['The application to discharge the jury was refused.' 'The application to discharge the particular juror was refused.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment