R v Keli LANE [No 23] [2010] NSWSC 1553

R v Keli LANE [No 23] [2010] NSWSC 1553

The jury had deliberated for approximately 21 hours in a four-month circumstantial evidence trial involving one murder count and three perjury or false statement counts. Jury notes, answers to questions, and the foreman's evidence on oath showed that unanimous verdicts had been reached on some counts but not on the murder count, and that it was unlikely further deliberation would produce unanimity. The statutory preconditions in the Jury Act 1977 were therefore met and a majority verdict could be taken.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial Procedural Ruling / Decision That Circumstances Exist for a Majority Verdict to Be Taken in the Trial
Outcome
The Court was satisfied that circumstances existed for a majority verdict to be taken; the jury later announced a verdict that the accused was guilty of murder.
Legal Topics
['majority Verdict' 'jury Deliberations' 'murder' 'perjury/making a False Statement on Oath']
['criminal Procedure' 'jury Law'] ['majority Verdict' 'jury Deliberations' 'murder' 'perjury/making a False Statement on Oath']

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 Trial Procedural Ruling / Decision That Circumstances Exist for a Majority Verdict to Be Taken in the Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the court was satisfied under the Jury Act 1977 that circumstances existed for a majority verdict to be taken.' 'Whether a reasonable period of not less than eight hours had passed, having regard to the nature and complexity of the criminal proceedings.' 'Whether it was unlikely that the jurors would reach a unanimous verdict after further deliberation.']

Ratio Decidendi

The jury had deliberated for approximately 21 hours in a four-month circumstantial evidence trial involving one murder count and three perjury or false statement counts. Jury notes, answers to questions, and the foreman's evidence on oath showed that unanimous verdicts had been reached on some counts but not on the murder count, and that it was unlikely further deliberation would produce unanimity. The statutory preconditions in the Jury Act 1977 were therefore met and a majority verdict could be taken.

Court Disposition

The Court was satisfied that circumstances existed for a majority verdict to be taken; the jury later announced a verdict that the accused was guilty of murder.

Orders

  • []