R v Peters; R v Oberg [2019] NSWDC 319

R v Peters; R v Oberg [2019] NSWDC 319

The application to discharge the jury was refused because Mr Peters' counsel, as counsel for another defendant in the proceeding, was entitled under s 20(2) to make comments about Mr Oberg's failure to give evidence, and although the manner of the comments may have created unfairness to Mr Oberg, that unfairness could be cured by appropriate directions and comments in the summing-up.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Application to Discharge Jury During Trial
Outcome
Application to discharge jury refused.
Legal Topics
['jury Discharge' 'closing Address to Jury by Accused Person' 'directions to Jury' "accused's Failure to Give Evidence" 'right to Silence']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Application to Discharge Jury During Trial

  1. 1 ["Whether counsel for a co-accused impermissibly submitted that Mr Oberg's failure to give evidence indicated guilt." 'Whether any unfairness arising from that submission required discharge of the jury.' 'Whether any unfairness could be addressed by directions and comment in the summing-up.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application to discharge the jury was refused because Mr Peters' counsel, as counsel for another defendant in the proceeding, was entitled under s 20(2) to make comments about Mr Oberg's failure to give evidence, and although the manner of the comments may have created unfairness to Mr Oberg, that unfairness could be cured by appropriate directions and comments in the summing-up.

Court Disposition

Application to discharge jury refused.

Orders

  • ['Application to discharge jury refused.']