R v Nehme (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 513

R v Nehme (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 513

Juror A was discharged because the information before the Court indicated that Juror A had disregarded strong directions not to make Internet inquiries and had engaged in misconduct in relation to the trial. The jury was also discharged because it was not ascertainable to what extent Juror A had spoken to other jurors about the searches or views on the law, creating a risk of substantial miscarriage of justice and a reasonable apprehension that the jury might not discharge its function according to law, on the evidence, and in accordance with the judge's directions.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 March 2024
Procedural Posture
Crime / Procedural Ruling on Jury Discharge
Outcome
Juror A discharged; jury discharged.
Legal Topics
['jury Discharge' 'juror Misconduct' 'internet Searches by Juror' 'risk of Substantial Miscarriage of Justice' 'fair Minded Lay Observer Apprehension']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['jury Discharge' 'juror Misconduct' 'internet Searches by Juror' 'risk of Substantial Miscarriage of Justice' 'fair Minded Lay Observer Apprehension']

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

Crime / Procedural Ruling on Jury Discharge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Juror A should be discharged for alleged misconduct in searching the Internet for information relating to the case and discussing it with another juror.' 'Whether the whole jury should be discharged because continuing the trial with the remaining jurors would give rise to the risk of a substantial miscarriage of justice.' "Whether a fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that the jury might not discharge its function according to law, on the evidence, and in accordance with the judge's directions."]

Ratio Decidendi

Juror A was discharged because the information before the Court indicated that Juror A had disregarded strong directions not to make Internet inquiries and had engaged in misconduct in relation to the trial. The jury was also discharged because it was not ascertainable to what extent Juror A had spoken to other jurors about the searches or views on the law, creating a risk of substantial miscarriage of justice and a reasonable apprehension that the jury might not discharge its function according to law, on the evidence, and in accordance with the judge's directions.

Court Disposition

Juror A discharged; jury discharged.

Orders

  • ['Juror A is discharged.' 'The jury is discharged.']