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.
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Application to Discharge Jury During Trial
Legal Issues
- 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.']
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