Regina v Channell [2000] NSWCCA 289

Regina v Channell [2000] NSWCCA 289

No miscarriage of justice or appellable error was shown. The trial judge was exercising a discretion, the risk of prejudice from the newspaper article could be addressed by firm directions to decide the case only on the evidence, and the second jury was aware that the appellant was being tried on a single count concerning a single complainant. The additional matters concerning a juror's relationship to a police officer and the complainant's evidence about compensation did not establish prejudice warranting intervention.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 August 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction and Contingent Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.
Legal Topics
['prejudicial Publicity' 'discharge of Jury' 'fair Trial' 'appellate Review of Discretionary Trial Rulings' 'application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['prejudicial Publicity' 'discharge of Jury' 'fair Trial' 'appellate Review of Discretionary Trial Rulings' 'application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence']

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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Against Conviction and Contingent Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge erred after discharging the first jury because of prejudicial newspaper publicity by not adjourning the recommenced trial to a later date.' 'Whether the trial judge erred by not adjourning the recommenced trial to a different venue.' 'Whether the jury in the recommenced trial should have been discharged because evidence from the complainant was said to confirm prejudicial matters that had led to discharge of the first jury.' 'Whether any miscarriage of justice resulted from potential prejudice affecting the recommenced trial.']

Ratio Decidendi

No miscarriage of justice or appellable error was shown. The trial judge was exercising a discretion, the risk of prejudice from the newspaper article could be addressed by firm directions to decide the case only on the evidence, and the second jury was aware that the appellant was being tried on a single count concerning a single complainant. The additional matters concerning a juror's relationship to a police officer and the complainant's evidence about compensation did not establish prejudice warranting intervention.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

Orders

  • ['The appeal against conviction be dismissed.' 'The application for leave to appeal against sentence be refused.']