R v Holmes (No 6) [2021] NSWSC 116

R v Holmes (No 6) [2021] NSWSC 116

The jury had deliberated for about 18 hours, which was a reasonable period given the murder trial involved only two substantial issues and straightforward evidence, satisfying s 55F(2)(a). Although two jurors expressed confidence that unanimity might be achieved, the jury had twice reported stalemate and one juror firmly assessed that unanimity would not be achieved; in those circumstances the Court was satisfied that s 55F(2)(b) was also met and that a majority verdict direction should be given.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Procedure; Murder Trial / Procedural Ruling on Whether to Give a Majority Verdict Direction to the Jury
Outcome
Majority verdict direction to be provided to the jury.
Legal Topics
['majority Verdicts' 'jury Deliberations' 'unanimous Verdict' 'jury Act 1977 (nsw) S 55 F']
['criminal Procedure'] ['majority Verdicts' 'jury Deliberations' 'unanimous Verdict' 'jury Act 1977 (nsw) S 55 F']

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 Procedure; Murder Trial / Procedural Ruling on Whether to Give a Majority Verdict Direction to the Jury

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the jury had deliberated for a reasonable period of not less than 8 hours having regard to the nature and complexity of the criminal proceedings.' 'Whether, after examination on oath or affirmation of one or more jurors, it was unlikely that the jurors would reach a unanimous verdict after further deliberation.' 'Whether the Court should give a majority verdict direction under s 55F of the Jury Act 1977 (NSW).']

Ratio Decidendi

The jury had deliberated for about 18 hours, which was a reasonable period given the murder trial involved only two substantial issues and straightforward evidence, satisfying s 55F(2)(a). Although two jurors expressed confidence that unanimity might be achieved, the jury had twice reported stalemate and one juror firmly assessed that unanimity would not be achieved; in those circumstances the Court was satisfied that s 55F(2)(b) was also met and that a majority verdict direction should be given.

Court Disposition

Majority verdict direction to be provided to the jury.

Orders

  • ['I propose to provide the majority verdict direction to the jury.']